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

Re: The w and hw tengwar

Expand Messages
  • j_mach_wust
    ... Never before have I examined the Bombadil-mode [note: I m using the double-quote to mark terms that are based on my own hypothesis] samples for these two
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Johan Winge wrote in a post that has inspired me a lot:

      > First of all (to begin with the basics), in DTS 16, 17, 18
      > and 23 (and possibly no other?), which are all from a
      > fairly early stage of Tolkien's mythology, there occurs a
      > tengwa for "w" in e.g. "was". It seems to have two
      > allographs: either it is aligned on the baseline as in DTS
      > 17, or it may descend below the baseline as in DTS 18. In
      > DTS 16 and 23, both variants are used in the same text.
      > These are the characters 179 and 190 in Daniel Smith's
      > encoding.

      Never before have I examined the "Bombadil-mode" [note: I'm using the
      double-quote to mark terms that are based on my own hypothesis]
      samples for these two allographs! This sign felt so much like a single
      w-sign to me that I haven't found any interest in searching the
      distribution of its allographs. I still consider that their
      distinction is not necessary. I think a tengwar font shouldn't collect
      all the allographs but represent a single character of every sign
      based on the most examplar specimina. And as to this tengwa, these are
      the ones in DTS 18 which is the best sample of the early modes (DTS 16
      and 17 are angular, DTS 23 is very rough). That means, I don't see any
      need for character 190 (now that I finally know why this character was
      created at all!).

      > When I designed the tengwa at
      > codepoint 191 in Tengwar Annatar I were under the
      > impression that this was true for that tengwa too, that it
      > was a variant of the w tengwa that was ascending above the
      > x-height instead of descending below the baseline. In
      > hindsight I think I was wrong.

      So I understand that you've created 190 because your theory back then
      was that this sign showed a unusually wide range of allographs, and
      therefore you created three different signs for all these allographs:
      179, 190, upright 191.

      You've written on the "rómen nuquerna" in DTS 18 and 23 vs. the "rómen
      nuquerna" in DTS 17:

      > The design is fairly different, though. I think the best
      > explanation of this comes from Måns Björkman, who came to
      > the following conclusion in Elfscript message 73 (albeit
      > from somewhat different basis):
      >
      > > After the similarity [of the hw tengwa in DTS 18] with a
      > > turned <rómen> was noted by the users, it would then be
      > > re-shaped (in the 'pointed' style, but apparently
      > > nowhere else) to resemble that character more closely.
      > > This imagined chain of events would in its complexity be
      > > a weakness to my theory, if it weren't that the <rómen
      > > nuquerna> in DTS 17 has such a clear correspondance to
      > > the WH-tengwa in DTS 18.

      I'd like better another explanation: In the known tenwgar samples, we
      may observe two different stages in the development of the
      representations of /w/ and /W/:

      (a) The first stage is the one of the "Bombadil-modes". By then, these
      sounds were expressed by reversed versions of the tengwar lambe and
      rómen. This is best seen in DTS 17, where they are almost exact
      reversions (except for the "lambe nuquerna" bow attaching to the
      beginning of the horizontal bar, as you've pointed out). In the more
      cursive renderings of the "Bombadil-modes", that is, in DTS 28 and 23,
      the shapes of both tengwar are better adapted to the pen movements,
      but the underlying forms are still a reversed rómen and a reversed lambe.

      (b) Then, Tolkien became aware that "lambe nuquerna" and "rómen
      nuquerna" should represent sounds related to the ones of lambe and
      rómen. Therefore, he abandoned the idea of undelying reversed
      lambe/rómen. He now represented /w/ by vala, but for /W/ he still used
      the cursive form of "rómen nuquerna", though now, it wasn't a reversed
      rómen any more, but a tengwa of its own. It evolved into the cursive
      form of hwesta sindarinwa, as you've described. Searching for an
      explanation, Tolkien re-associated it with hwesta. That is, the sign
      externally originating in "rómen nuquerna" was remodeled to internally
      originate in hwesta.

      (c) The Anglosaxon modes may be seen as an alternative (previous?)
      solution for the remplacements of "lambe nuquerna" and "rómen
      nuquerna", which I think you've well explained to be related to each
      other. You're demonstration of their relation made me assume that in
      those modern English modes that use rómen for /w/, /W/ might be
      represented with this "halla-rómen" as well. I may be wrong, but it
      seems to me that unfortunately, none of these modern English modes
      shows an instance of /W/.

      As to characters in a font, I'd say the font should have different
      signs for hwesta sindarinwa and for "rómen nuquerna" since they belong
      to different external "stages" of the evolution of the tengwar.

      The most notable allographs may be the cursive one of hwesta
      sindarinwa: The tengwa seen in DTS 37.

      > To judge from the existing computer fonts, the upright
      > hwesta sindarinwa has traditionally been seen as
      > consisting of a stem, with a closed bow or circle attached
      > to the left, and with a tail to the right attached at the
      > bottom end of the stem. In my opinion this may be an
      > overtly complicated view at the matter. A more simple
      > analysis would be that the tail is an extension not of the
      > stem but of the bow, and that this is how it is written,
      > beginning with the stem from top to bottom, then going up
      > and completing both the bow and the tail in one stroke.
      > Neither DTS 9, nor DTS 24 contradict this view, I think.
      > This is how hwesta sindarinwa is currently drawn in
      > Tengwar Annatar.

      I like your upright hwesta sindarinwa!

      > In the italic font, at codepoint 191 I have placed the
      > cursive hwesta sindarinwa of DTS 24, which essentially is
      > the same as the hw tengwa at line 19 in DTS 18, only
      > without the upper bow, which doesn't fit in the ring
      > inscription style anyway, just like roomen lacks the under
      > bow.

      I think this is a merger of a "stage (a)" sign with a stage "(b)
      sign", but these signs of different stages ought to be separated.

      > As italic hwesta sindarinwa I have used simply a
      > slanted version of the upright one. This may be dubious -
      > I should perhaps use the same tengwa as in 191.

      That's what I'd recommend.

      And I don't like your italic "stage (c)" "halla-rómen". I think that
      the raised telco/halla element should be kept straight. However, I see
      this would be tricky within your italic tengwar.

      ---------------------------
      j. 'mach' wust
      http://machhezan.tripod.com
      ---------------------------
    • Johan Winge
      ... I agree with you in one sense. When it comes to e.g. the Unicode encoding, it wouldn t be right to include both variants, since they are essentially one
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 04:16:47 -0000, j_mach_wust <machhezan@...> wrote:

        > I still consider that their [of the w tengwar]
        > distinction is not necessary. I think a tengwar font shouldn't collect
        > all the allographs but represent a single character of every sign
        > based on the most examplar specimina. And as to this tengwa, these are
        > the ones in DTS 18 which is the best sample of the early modes (DTS 16
        > and 17 are angular, DTS 23 is very rough). That means, I don't see any
        > need for character 190 (now that I finally know why this character was
        > created at all!).

        I agree with you in one sense. When it comes to e.g. the Unicode encoding,
        it wouldn't be right to include both variants, since they are essentially
        one and the same tengwa. However, in many so called professional fonts
        there are alternate glyphs included, and there is software that lets the
        user select what look they prefer. This is no drawback at all, but a
        service to the user. In this case, that technology is not available, so
        the solution is to store the variants as different characters.

        In the future, things will be different, I hope, imagine, and plan, but
        for the moment we are not there yet.

        > So I understand that you've created 190 because your theory back then
        > was that this sign showed a unusually wide range of allographs, and
        > therefore you created three different signs for all these allographs:
        > 179, 190, upright 191.

        Yes, more or less, or rather, I hadn't thought much on the subject and was
        lazy: to just copy the w tengwa was the easiest solution.

        > You've written on the "rómen nuquerna" in DTS 18 and 23 vs. the "rómen
        > nuquerna" in DTS 17:
        >
        >> The design is fairly different, though. I think the best
        >> explanation of this comes from Måns Björkman, who came to
        >> the following conclusion in Elfscript message 73 (albeit
        >> from somewhat different basis):
        >>
        >> > After the similarity [of the hw tengwa in DTS 18] with a
        >> > turned <rómen> was noted by the users, it would then be
        >> > re-shaped (in the 'pointed' style, but apparently
        >> > nowhere else) to resemble that character more closely.
        >> > This imagined chain of events would in its complexity be
        >> > a weakness to my theory, if it weren't that the <rómen
        >> > nuquerna> in DTS 17 has such a clear correspondance to
        >> > the WH-tengwa in DTS 18.
        >
        > I'd like better another explanation: In the known tenwgar samples, we
        > may observe two different stages in the development of the
        > representations of /w/ and /W/:
        >
        > (a) The first stage is the one of the "Bombadil-modes". By then, these
        > sounds were expressed by reversed versions of the tengwar lambe and
        > rómen. This is best seen in DTS 17, where they are almost exact
        > reversions (except for the "lambe nuquerna" bow attaching to the
        > beginning of the horizontal bar, as you've pointed out). In the more
        > cursive renderings of the "Bombadil-modes", that is, in DTS 28 and 23,
        > the shapes of both tengwar are better adapted to the pen movements,
        > but the underlying forms are still a reversed rómen and a reversed lambe.

        This is a much simpler explanation, and I would wholeheartedly agree with
        you, were it not for the facts that disturb me, namely 1) that the w
        tengwa differs in terms of both size and appearance from a turned lambe as
        it is usually drawn, as I have described before, and, more importantly 2)
        that the hw tengwa never once, except for in DTS 17, which you yourself
        dismissed in your discussion of allographs of the w tengwa due to its
        angular style, exhibits the closed (or at least nearly closed) bow that I
        find essential for the normal roomen, not even in DTS 18 with its careful
        and elaborate style, and even though the hw tengwa in that text is drawn
        thrice in different shapes in a playful or experimental manner.

        It may be that the closing is not as essential for a roomen to be roomen
        as I have thought, and that the differences in this aspect between the hw
        tengwa and roomen could be explained by adaption to the pen movements, or
        perhaps by Tolkien simply not liking the appearance of a regular roomen
        turned up side down. The former may be possible, but a somewhat weak
        argument when it comes to DTS 18, which has hardly an easy style to begin
        with: to trully write a regular upside down roomen with its closing of the
        bow in this style is not likely to pose more problems to the pen and hand
        of the writer, than to write what is currently written. The latter is of
        course difficult to know. And there could be any other explanation

        Well, this is a very interesting subject, and regardless of which theory
        is correct, I think I have come to a conclusion, and I think you may
        agree, namely that the hw tengwa in any case should ideally _not_ in
        computer fonts be drawn simply as a normal roomen turned upside down, but
        rather like one of the three examples in DTS 18. (Except, naturally, for
        fonts that exhibit the angular style.) If one then calls this glyph a
        roomen nuquerna or a completely separate tengwa, well, that is up to the
        user of the font to decide. I won't write either in my documentation.

        > (b) Then, Tolkien became aware that "lambe nuquerna" and "rómen
        > nuquerna" should represent sounds related to the ones of lambe and
        > rómen.

        Well, we can't know for sure this was the reason. But, for one reason or
        another...

        > Therefore, he abandoned the idea of undelying reversed
        > lambe/rómen. He now represented /w/ by vala, but for /W/ he still used
        > the cursive form of "rómen nuquerna", though now, it wasn't a reversed
        > rómen any more, but a tengwa of its own. It evolved into the cursive
        > form of hwesta sindarinwa, as you've described. Searching for an
        > explanation, Tolkien re-associated it with hwesta. That is, the sign
        > externally originating in "rómen nuquerna" was remodeled to internally
        > originate in hwesta.

        I could probably not agree more. (Under these premises.)

        > (c) The Anglosaxon modes may be seen as an alternative (previous?)
        > solution for the remplacements of "lambe nuquerna" and "rómen
        > nuquerna", which I think you've well explained to be related to each
        > other. You're demonstration of their relation made me assume that in
        > those modern English modes that use rómen for /w/, /W/ might be
        > represented with this "halla-rómen" as well. I may be wrong, but it
        > seems to me that unfortunately, none of these modern English modes
        > shows an instance of /W/.

        Which are these, by the way? I can think of DTS 13. Are there any more
        English texts with roomen for /w/?

        > As to characters in a font, I'd say the font should have different
        > signs for hwesta sindarinwa and for "rómen nuquerna" since they belong
        > to different external "stages" of the evolution of the tengwar.

        Yes, though in the italic style they will, by chance, coincide in
        appearance.

        > And I don't like your italic "stage (c)" "halla-rómen". I think that
        > the raised telco/halla element should be kept straight. However, I see
        > this would be tricky within your italic tengwar.

        No, it's inherently bad suited for that style. I'm afraid it was the best
        I could come up with, if I still wanted the connection at the end of the
        stem.

        Best regards,
        Johan Winge
      • j_mach_wust
        ... Many tengwar fonts distinguish e.g. three-dot a-tehtar from (unattested) circumflex/caron a-tehtar, and you re also going to adopt the mistaken óre
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Johan Winge" <johan.winge@t...> wrote:

          > On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 04:16:47 -0000, j_mach_wust <machhezan@g...> wrote:
          >
          > > I still consider that their [of the w tengwar] distinction is not
          > > necessary. I think a tengwar font shouldn't collect all the
          > > allographs but represent a single character of every sign based on
          > > the most examplar specimina. And as to this tengwa, these are the
          > > ones in DTS 18 which is the best sample of the early modes (DTS 16
          > > and 17 are angular, DTS 23 is very rough). That means, I don't see
          > > any need for character 190 (now that I finally know why this
          > > character was created at all!).
          >
          > I agree with you in one sense. When it comes to e.g. the Unicode
          > encoding, it wouldn't be right to include both variants, since they
          > are essentially one and the same tengwa. However, in many so called
          > professional fonts there are alternate glyphs included, and there is
          > software that lets the user select what look they prefer. This is no
          > drawback at all, but a service to the user. In this case, that
          > technology is not available, so the solution is to store the
          > variants as different characters.

          Many tengwar fonts distinguish e.g. three-dot a-tehtar from
          (unattested) circumflex/caron a-tehtar, and you're also going to adopt
          the mistaken óre corrected to a rómen. That correction allows an
          accurate representation of some details in Tolkien's tengwar samples,
          along with the distinction of several "lambe nuquerna" signs. However,
          I think the inherent danger of such allographic options is that people
          are going to distinguish them. I think I've seen modes where the three
          dot tehtar were opposed to the circumflex/caron. I would say: this is
          very un-Tolkienian; they would say: it's the fonts!

          > In the future, things will be different, I hope, imagine, and plan,
          > but for the moment we are not there yet.

          That's how it is. At least there's already a tengwar font with italic
          and bold versions!

          > > You've written on the "rómen nuquerna" in DTS 18 and 23 vs. the
          > > "rómen nuquerna" in DTS 17:
          > >
          > >> The design is fairly different, though. I think the best
          > >> explanation of this comes from Måns Björkman, who came to
          > >> the following conclusion in Elfscript message 73 (albeit
          > >> from somewhat different basis):
          > >>
          > >> > After the similarity [of the hw tengwa in DTS 18] with a
          > >> > turned <rómen> was noted by the users, it would then be
          > >> > re-shaped (in the 'pointed' style, but apparently
          > >> > nowhere else) to resemble that character more closely.
          > >> > This imagined chain of events would in its complexity be
          > >> > a weakness to my theory, if it weren't that the <rómen
          > >> > nuquerna> in DTS 17 has such a clear correspondance to
          > >> > the WH-tengwa in DTS 18.
          > >
          > > I'd like better another explanation: In the known tenwgar samples,
          > > we may observe two different stages in the development of the
          > > representations of /w/ and /W/:
          > >
          > > (a) The first stage is the one of the "Bombadil-modes". By then,
          > > these sounds were expressed by reversed versions of the tengwar
          > > lambe and rómen. This is best seen in DTS 17, where they are
          > > almost exact reversions (except for the "lambe nuquerna" bow
          > > attaching to the beginning of the horizontal bar, as you've
          > > pointed out). In the more cursive renderings of the
          > > "Bombadil-modes", that is, in DTS 28 and 23, the shapes of both
          > > tengwar are better adapted to the pen movements, but the
          > > underlying forms are still a reversed rómen and a reversed lambe.
          >
          > This is a much simpler explanation, and I would wholeheartedly agree
          > with you, were it not for the facts that disturb me, namely 1) that
          > the w tengwa differs in terms of both size and appearance from a
          > turned lambe as it is usually drawn, as I have described before,
          > and, more importantly 2) that the hw tengwa never once, except for
          > in DTS 17, which you yourself dismissed in your discussion of
          > allographs of the w tengwa due to its angular style, exhibits the
          > closed (or at least nearly closed) bow that I find essential for the
          > normal roomen, not even in DTS 18 with its careful and elaborate
          > style, and even though the hw tengwa in that text is drawn thrice in
          > different shapes in a playful or experimental manner.

          There are variations, but in my eyes, the similarities are much more
          salient. In the end, it's a matter of interpretation, or let's say, of
          taste.

          However, I have a different opinion about the relation between DTS 17
          and 18: I think that the forms of DTS 17 are more elemental, closer to
          the underlying ideal, whereas the forms of DTS 18 are less elemental
          because they're much more conditioned by the pen movements. Therefore,
          I'm not at all surprised that the "nuquernar" tengwar of DTS 17 are
          more similar to lambe and rómen. And I don't want to dismiss the
          samples of DTS 17 because I think they're very important to my
          argumentation.

          > It may be that the closing is not as essential for a roomen to be
          > roomen as I have thought, and that the differences in this aspect
          > between the hw tengwa and roomen could be explained by adaption to
          > the pen movements, or perhaps by Tolkien simply not liking the
          > appearance of a regular roomen turned up side down. The former may
          > be possible, but a somewhat weak argument when it comes to DTS 18,
          > which has hardly an easy style to begin with: to trully write a
          > regular upside down roomen with its closing of the bow in this style
          > is not likely to pose more problems to the pen and hand of the
          > writer, than to write what is currently written. The latter is of
          > course difficult to know. And there could be any other explanation

          It seems to me that in DTS 18, the counterclockwise lambe bow might be
          preferred to the clockwise "lambe nuquerna" bow (as for bows bigger
          than a normal lúva). I'd be searching for assymetries of this kind in
          order to explain the different forms of the w/wh tengwar.

          > Well, this is a very interesting subject, and regardless of which
          > theory is correct, I think I have come to a conclusion, and I think
          > you may agree, namely that the hw tengwa in any case should ideally
          > _not_ in computer fonts be drawn simply as a normal roomen turned
          > upside down, but rather like one of the three examples in DTS 18.
          > (Except, naturally, for fonts that exhibit the angular style.)

          I'm sure you'll come up with an excellent glyph!

          > If
          > one then calls this glyph a roomen nuquerna or a completely separate
          > tengwa, well, that is up to the user of the font to decide. I won't
          > write either in my documentation.

          A very reasonable decision!

          > > (c) The Anglosaxon modes may be seen as an alternative (previous?)
          > > solution for the remplacements of "lambe nuquerna" and "rómen
          > > nuquerna", which I think you've well explained to be related to
          > > each other. You're demonstration of their relation made me assume
          > > that in those modern English modes that use rómen for /w/, /W/
          > > might be represented with this "halla-rómen" as well. I may be
          > > wrong, but it seems to me that unfortunately, none of these modern
          > > English modes shows an instance of /W/.
          >
          > Which are these, by the way? I can think of DTS 13. Are there any
          > more English texts with roomen for /w/?

          DTS 10 and DTS 60. And then there's two more English samples where we
          don't see any w, but where every r is represented with óre (which is
          only found in modes that use rómen for /w/): DTS 1 and DTS 25 (with a
          canceled rómen/óre line).

          > > As to characters in a font, I'd say the font should have different
          > > signs for hwesta sindarinwa and for "rómen nuquerna" since they
          > > belong to different external "stages" of the evolution of the
          > > tengwar.
          >
          > Yes, though in the italic style they will, by chance, coincide in
          > appearance.

          I hope they won't be too confused!

          ---------------------------
          j. 'mach' wust
          http://machhezan.tripod.com
          ---------------------------
        • i_degilbor
          ... Just a note: the circumflex a tehta is attested. In the Namárië calligraphy in RGEO, the subtitle _Altariello nainië Lóriendesse_ exhibits the
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 4, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Teithant Mach:
            > Many tengwar fonts distinguish e.g. three-dot a-tehtar from
            > (unattested) circumflex/caron a-tehtar

            Just a note: the circumflex 'a' tehta is attested. In the 'Namárië' calligraphy in RGEO, the subtitle _Altariello nainië Lóriendesse_ exhibits the circumflex for 'a'.

            Cuio mae, Danny.
          • j_mach_wust
            ... Thanks for the correction! ... j. mach wust http://machhezan.tripod.com
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Danny wrote:

              > Teithant Mach:
              > > Many tengwar fonts distinguish e.g. three-dot a-tehtar from
              > > (unattested) circumflex/caron a-tehtar
              >
              > Just a note: the circumflex 'a' tehta is attested. In the 'Namárië'
              > calligraphy in RGEO, the subtitle _Altariello nainië Lóriendesse_
              > exhibits the circumflex for 'a'.

              Thanks for the correction!

              ---------------------------
              j. 'mach' wust
              http://machhezan.tripod.com
              ---------------------------
            • Måns Björkman
              I just thought I d share my thoughts on this interesting discussion. ... People have always used fonts in ways that those who know better object to. Just think
              Message 6 of 14 , Dec 8, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                I just thought I'd share my thoughts on this interesting discussion.


                --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <machhezan@g...> wrote
                (in reply to Johan Winge [>>]):

                > Many tengwar fonts distinguish e.g. three-dot a-tehtar from
                > (unattested) circumflex/caron a-tehtar, and you're also going to adopt
                > the mistaken óre corrected to a rómen. That correction allows an
                > accurate representation of some details in Tolkien's tengwar samples,
                > along with the distinction of several "lambe nuquerna" signs. However,
                > I think the inherent danger of such allographic options is that people
                > are going to distinguish them. I think I've seen modes where the three
                > dot tehtar were opposed to the circumflex/caron. I would say: this is
                > very un-Tolkienian; they would say: it's the fonts!

                People have always used fonts in ways that those who know better
                object to. Just think of the widespread use of foot and inch signs ('
                and ") as quotation marks! And abuse of Tengwar fonts was known long
                before Dan Smith created Tengwar Quenya. I don't think we should
                remove options for those knowledgeable to use them, just to prevent
                the less knowledgeable from making mistakes. With the keyboard layout
                used in most Tengwar fonts, they have ample opportunities to do that
                anyway.


                > > In the future, things will be different, I hope, imagine, and plan,
                > > but for the moment we are not there yet.
                >
                > That's how it is. At least there's already a tengwar font with italic
                > and bold versions!

                Indeed. And a good-looking Tengwar font, too!


                > [...]
                > However, I have a different opinion about the relation between DTS 17
                > and 18: I think that the forms of DTS 17 are more elemental, closer to
                > the underlying ideal, whereas the forms of DTS 18 are less elemental
                > because they're much more conditioned by the pen movements. Therefore,
                > I'm not at all surprised that the "nuquernar" tengwar of DTS 17 are
                > more similar to lambe and rómen. And I don't want to dismiss the
                > samples of DTS 17 because I think they're very important to my
                > argumentation.

                While I do agree that the "decorated verse-hand" of DTS 18 makes it a
                questionable source for the basic shapes of the letters, I don't think
                DTS 17 is more reliable. The vast majority of Tengwar samples
                published to date contains letter shapes consistent with the
                "book-hand", more or less. Why then assume that the "pointed" style
                should display the most elemental forms of the letters, rather than a
                curved one?

                In the case of the /w/-/W/ letters, I see many issues with regarding
                these as turned <lambe> and <rómen>. Firstly, the only character that
                is actually in shape an upside-down version of another character is
                the *<rómen nuquerna> of DTS 17. In DTS 18, the letter is clearly
                distinct from <rómen>. Even if the letter-shapes of DTS 18 are more
                "conditioned by the pen movements", it is (as Johan Winge notes) no
                more difficult to write an turned <rómen> than an ordinary one.
                Secondly, neither turned letter has a close phonological relationship
                with its normal form. If <rómen> was actually *used* for /w/ in these
                texts, I would find it easier to believe that its turned form was used
                for /W/.

                With regard to the Anglo-saxon /W/ sign: I agree with Johan Winge that
                this is probably a <rómen> with raised telco. Regardless wether or not
                the extended series is applicable to the additional tengwar, raised
                stems do represent fricatives in this mode. I based this character on
                <rómen> in Tengwar Parmaite, but alas! I missed the fact that the bow
                is connected to the lower part of the stem.

                Regards,

                Måns
              • Måns Björkman
                I just thought I d share my thoughts on this interesting discussion. ... People have always used fonts in ways that those who know better object to. Just think
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 8, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  I just thought I'd share my thoughts on this interesting discussion.


                  --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <machhezan@g...> wrote
                  (in reply to Johan Winge [>>]):

                  > Many tengwar fonts distinguish e.g. three-dot a-tehtar from
                  > (unattested) circumflex/caron a-tehtar, and you're also going to adopt
                  > the mistaken óre corrected to a rómen. That correction allows an
                  > accurate representation of some details in Tolkien's tengwar samples,
                  > along with the distinction of several "lambe nuquerna" signs. However,
                  > I think the inherent danger of such allographic options is that people
                  > are going to distinguish them. I think I've seen modes where the three
                  > dot tehtar were opposed to the circumflex/caron. I would say: this is
                  > very un-Tolkienian; they would say: it's the fonts!

                  People have always used fonts in ways that those who know better
                  object to. Just think of the widespread use of foot and inch signs ('
                  and ") as quotation marks! And abuse of Tengwar fonts was known long
                  before Dan Smith created Tengwar Quenya. I don't think we should
                  remove options for those knowledgeable to use them, just to prevent
                  the less knowledgeable from making mistakes. With the keyboard layout
                  used in most Tengwar fonts, they have ample opportunities to do that
                  anyway.


                  > > In the future, things will be different, I hope, imagine, and plan,
                  > > but for the moment we are not there yet.
                  >
                  > That's how it is. At least there's already a tengwar font with italic
                  > and bold versions!

                  Indeed. And a good-looking Tengwar font, too!


                  > [...]
                  > However, I have a different opinion about the relation between DTS 17
                  > and 18: I think that the forms of DTS 17 are more elemental, closer to
                  > the underlying ideal, whereas the forms of DTS 18 are less elemental
                  > because they're much more conditioned by the pen movements. Therefore,
                  > I'm not at all surprised that the "nuquernar" tengwar of DTS 17 are
                  > more similar to lambe and rómen. And I don't want to dismiss the
                  > samples of DTS 17 because I think they're very important to my
                  > argumentation.

                  While I do agree that the "decorated verse-hand" of DTS 18 makes it a
                  questionable source for the basic shapes of the letters, I don't think
                  DTS 17 is more reliable. The vast majority of Tengwar samples
                  published to date contains letter shapes consistent with the
                  "book-hand", more or less. Why then assume that the "pointed" style
                  should display the most elemental forms of the letters, rather than a
                  curved one?

                  In the case of the /w/-/W/ letters, I see many issues with regarding
                  these as turned <lambe> and <rómen>. Firstly, the only character that
                  is actually in shape an upside-down version of another character is
                  the *<rómen nuquerna> of DTS 17. In DTS 18, the letter is clearly
                  distinct from <rómen>. Even if the letter-shapes of DTS 18 are more
                  "conditioned by the pen movements", it is (as Johan Winge notes) no
                  more difficult to write an turned <rómen> than an ordinary one.
                  Secondly, neither turned letter has a close phonological relationship
                  with its normal form. If <rómen> was actually *used* for /w/ in these
                  texts, I would find it easier to believe that its turned form was used
                  for /W/.

                  With regard to the Anglo-saxon /W/ sign: I agree with Johan Winge that
                  this is probably a <rómen> with raised telco. Regardless wether or not
                  the extended series is applicable to the additional tengwar, raised
                  stems do represent fricatives in this mode. I based this character on
                  <rómen> in Tengwar Parmaite, but alas! I missed the fact that the bow
                  is connected to the lower part of the stem.

                  Regards,

                  Måns
                • j_mach_wust
                  ... Not the most elemental, for sure, but closer to the underlying ideal, that is, more elemental (perhaps I ve misused this word). Or perhaps I shouldn t call
                  Message 8 of 14 , Dec 9, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I wrote:

                    > > However, I have a different opinion about the relation between DTS
                    > > 17 and 18: I think that the forms of DTS 17 are more elemental,
                    > > closer to the underlying ideal, whereas the forms of DTS 18 are
                    > > less elemental because they're much more conditioned by the pen
                    > > movements. Therefore, I'm not at all surprised that the
                    > > "nuquernar" tengwar of DTS 17 are more similar to lambe and rómen.
                    > > And I don't want to dismiss the samples of DTS 17 because I think
                    > > they're very important to my argumentation.

                    Måns Björkman replied:

                    > While I do agree that the "decorated verse-hand" of DTS 18 makes it
                    > a questionable source for the basic shapes of the letters, I don't
                    > think DTS 17 is more reliable. The vast majority of Tengwar samples
                    > published to date contains letter shapes consistent with the
                    > "book-hand", more or less. Why then assume that the "pointed" style
                    > should display the most elemental forms of the letters, rather than
                    > a curved one?

                    Not the most elemental, for sure, but closer to the underlying ideal,
                    that is, more elemental (perhaps I've misused this word). Or perhaps I
                    shouldn't call it an ideal at all, but rather the very core of the
                    letters shape, the required form that distinguishes it from other
                    letters. The "book-hand" is very close to them, the "decorated
                    verse-hand" of DTS 18 is less close to them, and the angular forms of
                    DTS 17 are again closer to them.

                    I think this explains better why the rómen-like form of DTS 17 than
                    your explanation in message #73 (cited by Johan Winge in #4453)
                    because your explanation assumes a reanalysis of the form, that is, an
                    additional hypothetical step, whereas I assume (in message #4456) that
                    the forms are basically identical.

                    > In the case of the /w/-/W/ letters, I see many issues with regarding
                    > these as turned <lambe> and <rómen>. Firstly, the only character
                    > that is actually in shape an upside-down version of another
                    > character is the *<rómen nuquerna> of DTS 17. In DTS 18, the letter
                    > is clearly distinct from <rómen>. Even if the letter-shapes of DTS
                    > 18 are more "conditioned by the pen movements", it is (as Johan
                    > Winge notes) no more difficult to write an turned <rómen> than an
                    > ordinary one.

                    I don't think you can prove this. I do think it would be possible to
                    prove it based on an analysis of the shapes in DTS 18. You'd have to
                    show that the same shapes that a true reversed rómen would require are
                    found in DTS 18. I don't think they are found.

                    On the other hand, it's quite easy to show that there are other
                    letters in DTS 18 that have a peculiar form "conditioned by the pen
                    movements", e.g. lambe.

                    > Secondly, neither turned letter has a close
                    > phonological relationship with its normal form. If <rómen> was
                    > actually *used* for /w/ in these texts, I would find it easier to
                    > believe that its turned form was used for /W/.

                    You're saying that the "Bombadil-mode" w and wh tengwar are not
                    reversed forms of lambe and rómen but may accidently (because of
                    reanalysis) be replaced by reversed lambe and rómen. For unknown
                    reasons, Tolkien stopped using them.

                    I'm saying that the "Bombadil-mode" w and wh tengwar are reversed
                    forms of lambe and rómen but may accidently (conditioned by pen
                    movement) look dissimilar. The reason why Tolkien stopped using them
                    was because he saw that the sounds they represented weren't related to
                    the sounds represented by lambe and rómen. He continued experimenting
                    with more consistent representations of w and wh (rómen and "extended
                    rómen") and finally settled for vala and hwesta sindarinwa, the latter
                    of which externally originated in the "Bombadil-mode" wh-tengwa (as
                    suggested by Johan Winge in message #4453), but internally was
                    reanalyzed as a variant of hwesta.

                    I think my hypothesis has a number of advantages over yours:

                    (1) It explains why the forms were abandoned.

                    (2) It explains why there was much variations in the sign for w and wh.

                    (3) It explains the similarity between the "Bombadil mode" wh-tengwa
                    and hwesta sindarinwa.

                    (4) It does not imply a reanalysis ot the "Bombadil mode" w and wh
                    tengwar as reversed lambe and rómen for the explanation of DTS 17.

                    So I believe my hypothesis is more explanatory and less implicatory
                    than yours.

                    ---------------------------
                    j. 'mach' wust
                    http://machhezan.tripod.com
                    ---------------------------
                  • Måns Björkman
                    ... I think I understand what you are trying to describe. I don t know if there is any established term for it, though radical form seems appropriate (unless
                    Message 9 of 14 , Dec 10, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <machhezan@g...> wrote:
                      >
                      > [...]
                      >
                      > Måns Björkman replied:
                      >
                      > > While I do agree that the "decorated verse-hand" of DTS 18 makes it
                      > > a questionable source for the basic shapes of the letters, I don't
                      > > think DTS 17 is more reliable. The vast majority of Tengwar samples
                      > > published to date contains letter shapes consistent with the
                      > > "book-hand", more or less. Why then assume that the "pointed" style
                      > > should display the most elemental forms of the letters, rather than
                      > > a curved one?
                      >
                      > Not the most elemental, for sure, but closer to the underlying ideal,
                      > that is, more elemental (perhaps I've misused this word). Or perhaps I
                      > shouldn't call it an ideal at all, but rather the very core of the
                      > letters shape, the required form that distinguishes it from other
                      > letters. The "book-hand" is very close to them, the "decorated
                      > verse-hand" of DTS 18 is less close to them, and the angular forms of
                      > DTS 17 are again closer to them.

                      I think I understand what you are trying to describe. I don't know if
                      there is any established term for it, though "radical form" seems
                      appropriate (unless too strongly pointing backwards in time). Unlike
                      you, I would rate the decorated verse-hand higher than the pointed
                      style for closeness to that form. The differences between the
                      book-hand style and the verse-hand are not very big, in my opinion.


                      > I think this explains better why the rómen-like form of DTS 17 than
                      > your explanation in message #73 (cited by Johan Winge in #4453)
                      > because your explanation assumes a reanalysis of the form, that is, an
                      > additional hypothetical step, whereas I assume (in message #4456) that
                      > the forms are basically identical.

                      But if I have understood your theory correctly, it requires an extra
                      hypothetical step for the /w/ tengwa of DTS 17, *as well as* both the
                      /w/ and the /W/ tengwar of DTS 18, namely, that these have in shape
                      been removed from their hypothetical origins as reversed <lambe> and
                      <rómen>. Also, in retrospect, I don't think an intentional approach
                      toward the shape of a reversed <rómen> is really required for my
                      theory; the pointed-style /W/ tengwa may have gotten this shape for
                      many reasons (desire to distinguish it more clearly from <hyarmen>, to
                      rely less heavily on a thin /-slanting line, or merely artistic license).


                      > > In the case of the /w/-/W/ letters, I see many issues with regarding
                      > > these as turned <lambe> and <rómen>. Firstly, the only character
                      > > that is actually in shape an upside-down version of another
                      > > character is the *<rómen nuquerna> of DTS 17. In DTS 18, the letter
                      > > is clearly distinct from <rómen>. Even if the letter-shapes of DTS
                      > > 18 are more "conditioned by the pen movements", it is (as Johan
                      > > Winge notes) no more difficult to write an turned <rómen> than an
                      > > ordinary one.
                      >
                      > I don't think you can prove this. I do think it would be possible to
                      > prove it based on an analysis of the shapes in DTS 18. You'd have to
                      > show that the same shapes that a true reversed rómen would require are
                      > found in DTS 18. I don't think they are found.

                      You are quite right that I cannot prove that a turned <rómen> is as
                      easy to write as a normal one; and certainly not that it was as easy
                      for Tolkien in the 1930's. I can only speak from my own experiences
                      during a decade as a calligrapher and graphic designer.


                      > On the other hand, it's quite easy to show that there are other
                      > letters in DTS 18 that have a peculiar form "conditioned by the pen
                      > movements", e.g. lambe.

                      The only difference between the DTS 18 <lambe> and the book-hand form
                      of any significance that I can see is that the verse-hand form is
                      often written with one continous stroke. Since a large number of
                      letters lack even this peculiarity (including <rómen>), I don't regard
                      it as very conclusive.


                      > > Secondly, neither turned letter has a close
                      > > phonological relationship with its normal form. If <rómen> was
                      > > actually *used* for /w/ in these texts, I would find it easier to
                      > > believe that its turned form was used for /W/.
                      >
                      > You're saying that the "Bombadil-mode" w and wh tengwar are not
                      > reversed forms of lambe and rómen but may accidently (because of
                      > reanalysis) be replaced by reversed lambe and rómen. For unknown
                      > reasons, Tolkien stopped using them.

                      As I see it, the "accident" occurs only once, in DTS 17, where the /W/
                      letter appears as an allograph reminiscent of an upside-down <rómen>.
                      In all other occurrences, the /W/ letter deviates from that form.
                      Nowhere else does it have the inward-closed bow of <rómen>. Further, I
                      don't think Tolkien stopped using it: it reoccurs in DTS 37.

                      The /w/ tengwa is often quite similar to a turned <lambe>, but the
                      only thing speaking for a closer relationship is that similarity (and
                      analogy with the supposed "turned <rómen>"). If it is related, why is
                      there any deviations at all -- even in DTS 17, where the turned
                      <rómen> occurs? Why does it keep the diminished height of <óre>
                      instead of swooping to the height of <súle>, as the turned <rómen> does?

                      I think it is good practice to assume that the most frequent is normal
                      and regular, whereas isolated deviations represent irregularities.
                      Given all the evidence, I do not see that the /w/ and /W/ letters are
                      reversed <lambe> and <rómen>.

                      New material published recently has made me consider a quite different
                      origin for the /w/ letter. In "Addenda and Corrigenda to the
                      _Etymologies_ - Part Two" in _Vinyar Tengwar_ #46, a tengwa named
                      _waiya_ > _vaiya_ is given: it looks like an <úre> with a short tail,
                      or slightly like a Q with the tail being straight, horizontal and
                      starting at the bottom middle of the circle. The writing is rough, but
                      it appears as if Tolkien started the circle at the bottom, drew
                      counterclockwise and continued a short distance to the right as he
                      reached the bottom again.

                      It seems plausible to me that this letter could be the origin of the
                      "2"-shaped tengwa found in DTS 16, 17 and 18. It could also suggest an
                      alternative origin for <hwesta sindarinwa> (also occurring in this
                      source under the name _hwinde_) as being a form of the same tengwa
                      supplemented by a raised stem to mark it as a fricative. And this,
                      unfortunately, does not fit my "cursive -> straightened" theory.
                      Instead, I would assume that the straightened <hwesta sindarinwa> gave
                      rise to the cursive form, and that they were used as allographs (a
                      development with many parallels in Roman writing, and a few in Tengwar
                      writing).


                      > I'm saying that the "Bombadil-mode" w and wh tengwar are reversed
                      > forms of lambe and rómen but may accidently (conditioned by pen
                      > movement) look dissimilar. The reason why Tolkien stopped using them
                      > was because he saw that the sounds they represented weren't related to
                      > the sounds represented by lambe and rómen.

                      Why would Tolkien have started using reversed <lambe> and <rómen> for
                      /w/ and /W/ in the first place?


                      > He continued experimenting
                      > with more consistent representations of w and wh (rómen and "extended
                      > rómen") and finally settled for vala and hwesta sindarinwa, the latter
                      > of which externally originated in the "Bombadil-mode" wh-tengwa (as
                      > suggested by Johan Winge in message #4453), but internally was
                      > reanalyzed as a variant of hwesta.

                      I agree this scenario seems probable in general, though I can't find
                      any evidence that the connection between sound /w/ and letter <rómen>
                      preceded DTS 17 -- rather the reverse. In DTS 22, written in 1937,
                      <rómen> is used for /r/, and it is so used in _The Etymologies_, and
                      DTS 17 which of course is the source of "turned <rómen>". The earliest
                      occurrence of <rómen> for /w/ that I can think of is DTS 10,
                      "possibly" written 1948 but very likely postdating DTS 17.


                      > I think my hypothesis has a number of advantages over yours:
                      >
                      > (1) It explains why the forms were abandoned.

                      And I don't think they were. (Possibly <waiya>, if I may use that
                      name, but not the cursive <hwesta sindarinwa>.)


                      > (2) It explains why there was much variations in the sign for w and wh.

                      The variation is not that big, in my opinion. It is usually just a
                      matter of swoop. :-)


                      > (3) It explains the similarity between the "Bombadil mode" wh-tengwa
                      > and hwesta sindarinwa.

                      Since my own theory doesn't conflict with yours on this point, I agree.


                      > (4) It does not imply a reanalysis ot the "Bombadil mode" w and wh
                      > tengwar as reversed lambe and rómen for the explanation of DTS 17.

                      I do not reanalyse the /w/ tengwa of DTS 17, which I think is clearly
                      distinct from a reversed <lambe>. And I suggest a reanalysis of /W/ as
                      reversed <rómen> merely as one possibility out of many.


                      > So I believe my hypothesis is more explanatory and less implicatory
                      > than yours.

                      I believe my hypothesis takes better into account all the forms of all
                      the available sources, rather than relying heavily on a few unusual forms.


                      Yours,

                      Måns
                    • j_mach_wust
                      ... The differences between the angular style and the book-hand aren t very big either, except for the angles, of course, which I consider to be of secondary
                      Message 10 of 14 , Dec 10, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Måns Björkman wrote:

                        > I would rate the decorated verse-hand
                        > higher than the pointed style for closeness to that form. The
                        > differences between the book-hand style and the verse-hand are
                        > not very big, in my opinion.

                        The differences between the angular style and the book-hand aren't
                        very big either, except for the angles, of course, which I consider to
                        be of secondary importance for the "radical form".

                        Some more samples of DTS 17 being closer to the book-hand: The tengwa
                        hyarmen of the book-hand and of DTS 17 have both a straight longer
                        stroke, whereas it's curved in DTS 18; the tengwa esse looks more
                        composed in the book-hand and in DTS 17 than in DTS 18; the down part
                        of the tengwa rómen has a very marked lambe-like curl in DTS 18
                        whereas it doesn't in the book-hand and in DTS 17.

                        > > I think this explains better why the rómen-like form of DTS 17
                        > > than your explanation in message #73 (cited by Johan Winge in
                        > > #4453) because your explanation assumes a reanalysis of the
                        > > form, that is, an additional hypothetical step, whereas I
                        > > assume (in message #4456) that the forms are basically
                        > > identical.
                        >
                        > But if I have understood your theory correctly, it requires an
                        > extra hypothetical step for the /w/ tengwa of DTS 17,

                        You're referring to the "diminished height", I guess. Lambe doesn't
                        need to be as tall as tinco, and the reversed lambe is also higher
                        than the númen-hight, especially in the first instances in DTS 17.
                        Towards the end of the sample, the lambes grow taller and the "lambe
                        nuquerna" smaller. What's your explanation of the different heights?

                        You may also be referring to the diagonal stroke being attached to the
                        end of the horizontal one rather than to the middle. A possible
                        explanation is that in the "reversed lambe", it's easier to achieve
                        the same left-right extension of the "lúva" and the horizontal stroke.
                        I have to admit this is an extra hypothetical step.

                        > *as well
                        > as* both the /w/ and the /W/ tengwar of DTS 18, namely, that
                        > these have in shape been removed from their hypothetical origins
                        > as reversed <lambe> and <rómen>.

                        I see these as a natural transformation due to the swifter pen
                        movements. If you insist, you could call this a hypothesis: The shapes
                        are conditioned by the general style of the specimen.

                        > Also, in retrospect, I don't
                        > think an intentional approach toward the shape of a reversed
                        > <rómen> is really required for my theory; the pointed-style /W/
                        > tengwa may have gotten this shape for many reasons (desire to
                        > distinguish it more clearly from <hyarmen>, to rely less heavily
                        > on a thin /-slanting line, or

                        These arguments exclusively apply to DTS 17; why don't they apply in
                        DTS 18 as well? I'd like to have arguments that don't depend on DTS
                        numbers or on:

                        > merely artistic license).

                        ...

                        > > > Even if the letter-shapes of DTS 18 are more "conditioned by
                        > > > the pen movements", it is (as Johan Winge notes) no more
                        > > > difficult to write an turned <rómen> than an ordinary one.
                        > >
                        > > I don't think you can prove this. I do think it would be
                        > > possible to prove it based on an analysis of the shapes in DTS
                        > > 18. You'd have to show that the same shapes that a true
                        > > reversed rómen would require are found in DTS 18. I don't
                        > > think they are found.
                        >
                        > You are quite right that I cannot prove that a turned <rómen> is
                        > as easy to write as a normal one; and certainly not that it was
                        > as easy for Tolkien in the 1930's. I can only speak from my own
                        > experiences during a decade as a calligrapher and graphic
                        > designer.

                        I said that it would be possible to prove your hypothesis if it were
                        true, that is, not a real prove of course, but finding very strong
                        arguments from an analysis of the tengwar shapes in DTS 18. Do the
                        shapes required by a reversed rómen occur?

                        > > On the other hand, it's quite easy to show that there are
                        > > other letters in DTS 18 that have a peculiar form "conditioned
                        > > by the pen movements", e.g. lambe.
                        >
                        > The only difference between the DTS 18 <lambe> and the book-hand
                        > form of any significance that I can see is that the verse-hand
                        > form is often written with one continous stroke. Since a large
                        > number of letters lack even this peculiarity (including
                        > <rómen>), I don't regard it as very conclusive.

                        (The peculiarity of being written with one continuous stroke?) For
                        itself, the manner how lambe is written is not conclusive, but it
                        shows a trend if we consider it together with the other differences
                        from both book-hand and DTS 17 (see above).

                        > > You're saying that the "Bombadil-mode" w and wh tengwar are
                        > > not reversed forms of lambe and rómen but may accidently
                        > > (because of reanalysis) be replaced by reversed lambe and
                        > > rómen. For unknown reasons, Tolkien stopped using them.
                        >
                        > As I see it, the "accident" occurs only once, in DTS 17, where
                        > the /W/ letter appears as an allograph reminiscent of an
                        > upside-down <rómen>. In all other occurrences, the /W/ letter
                        > deviates from that form. Nowhere else does it have the
                        > inward-closed bow of <rómen>.

                        That's true. It's the weak spot of my hypothesis that it takes the far
                        less numerous sample as the "radical form". But you haven't given me
                        any arguments that would explain the reversed-rómen form.

                        > The /w/ tengwa is often quite similar to a turned <lambe>, but
                        > the only thing speaking for a closer relationship is that
                        > similarity (and analogy with the supposed "turned <rómen>"). If
                        > it is related, why is there any deviations at all -- even in DTS
                        > 17, where the turned <rómen> occurs?

                        You're implying that "reversed" letters should be perfectly symmetric
                        to their unreversed counterparts. I'm happy I don't have to prove that
                        esse nuquerna is a reversed esse -- it might be difficult against such
                        a fierce opponent as you! :)

                        Of course, the similarity is the most important argument for a closer
                        relationship of these letters. But it's not the only thing that speaks
                        for a closer relationship: Another hint is the fact these letters were
                        abandoned, that is, "lambe nuquerna" was totally abandoned and "rómen
                        nuquerna" was reanalyzed and changed in shape. I don't know of other
                        abandoned tengwar at all.

                        > New material published recently has made me consider a quite
                        > different origin for the /w/ letter. In "Addenda and Corrigenda
                        > to the _Etymologies_ - Part Two" in _Vinyar Tengwar_ #46, a
                        > tengwa named _waiya_ > _vaiya_ is given: it looks like an <úre>
                        > with a short tail, or slightly like a Q with the tail being
                        > straight, horizontal and starting at the bottom middle of the
                        > circle. The writing is rough, but it appears as if Tolkien
                        > started the circle at the bottom, drew counterclockwise and
                        > continued a short distance to the right as he reached the bottom
                        > again.
                        >
                        > It seems plausible to me that this letter could be the origin of
                        > the "2"-shaped tengwa found in DTS 16, 17 and 18.

                        Interesting hypothesis. However, the "Bombadil-mode" w-tengwa is
                        always open. And why should this tengwa be made more lambe-like?

                        > It could also
                        > suggest an alternative origin for <hwesta sindarinwa> (also
                        > occurring in this source under the name _hwinde_) as being a
                        > form of the same tengwa supplemented by a raised stem to mark it
                        > as a fricative. And this, unfortunately, does not fit my
                        > "cursive -> straightened" theory. Instead, I would assume that
                        > the straightened <hwesta sindarinwa> gave rise to the cursive
                        > form, and that they were used as allographs (a development with
                        > many parallels in Roman writing, and a few in Tengwar writing).

                        What development is parallel to a "reversed rómen" shape originating
                        in a hwinde/hwesta sindarinwa shape? I don't know any at all.

                        If I'm not wrong about the dates, the "Bombadil mode" samples might
                        predate the Etymologies. The latter were written in the later 1930s,
                        and the former may have been written already in the early 1930s. So
                        this sample would also fit in my explanation that hwesta
                        sindarinwa/hwinde was a reanalysis of a rómen nuquerna, and it would
                        show another "experimental" w-tengwa.

                        > > I'm saying that the "Bombadil-mode" w and wh tengwar are
                        > > reversed forms of lambe and rómen but may accidently
                        > > (conditioned by pen movement) look dissimilar. The reason why
                        > > Tolkien stopped using them was because he saw that the sounds
                        > > they represented weren't related to the sounds represented by
                        > > lambe and rómen.
                        >
                        > Why would Tolkien have started using reversed <lambe> and
                        > <rómen> for /w/ and /W/ in the first place?

                        I don't know. He needed tengwar for these two sounds. Could it be that
                        this assignment was only made in English? This might explain why he
                        was less scrupulous.

                        Your hypothesis doesn't explain why he abandoned them if they were
                        distinct from rómen and lambe.

                        > > He continued experimenting with more consistent
                        > > representations of w and wh (rómen and "extended rómen") and
                        > > finally settled for vala and hwesta sindarinwa, the latter of
                        > > which externally originated in the "Bombadil-mode" wh-tengwa
                        > > (as suggested by Johan Winge in message #4453), but internally
                        > > was reanalyzed as a variant of hwesta.
                        >
                        > I agree this scenario seems probable in general, though I can't
                        > find any evidence that the connection between sound /w/ and
                        > letter <rómen> preceded DTS 17 -- rather the reverse.

                        My bad English. (1) "lambe nuquerna" and "rómen nuquerna"; (2)
                        comprehension that this doesn't work; (3) experimenting with other
                        forms; (4) vala (or other depending on mode) and hwesta sindarinwa.

                        > In DTS 22,
                        > written in 1937, <rómen> is used for /r/, and it is so used in
                        > _The Etymologies_, and DTS 17 which of course is the source of
                        > "turned <rómen>". The earliest occurrence of <rómen> for /w/
                        > that I can think of is DTS 10, "possibly" written 1948 but very
                        > likely postdating DTS 17.

                        Of course. DTS 50 and 51 were probably written in late 1946. It's
                        interesting that the vala/hwesta sindarinwa solution predates this
                        (DTS 25 at the end of 1939). The final forms don't need to be the last
                        developed.

                        > > I think my hypothesis has a number of advantages over yours:
                        > >
                        > > (1) It explains why the forms were abandoned.
                        >
                        > And I don't think they were. (Possibly <waiya>, if I may use
                        > that name, but not the cursive <hwesta sindarinwa>.)

                        I've missed my own point. Here it is again: My hypothesis explains why
                        the "lambe nuquerna" was abandoned.

                        > > (2) It explains why there was much variations in the sign for
                        > > w and wh.
                        >
                        > The variation is not that big, in my opinion. It is usually just
                        > a matter of swoop. :-)

                        It's in comparison to other sounds.

                        > > (3) It explains the similarity between the "Bombadil mode"
                        > > wh-tengwa and hwesta sindarinwa.
                        >
                        > Since my own theory doesn't conflict with yours on this point, I
                        > agree.

                        I've missed my own point again. Here it goes: My hypothesis explains
                        the similarities and the differences between the "Bombadil mode"
                        wh-tengwa and hwesta sindarinwa.

                        ---------------------------
                        j. 'mach' wust
                        http://machhezan.tripod.com
                        ---------------------------
                      • Måns Björkman
                        ... I agree with you that the angular form of the letters is of secondary importance, but in my opinion, so are the few peculiarities of the decorated
                        Message 11 of 14 , Dec 15, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          "j_mach_wust" <machhezan@g...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Måns Björkman wrote:
                          >
                          > > I would rate the decorated verse-hand
                          > > higher than the pointed style for closeness to that form. The
                          > > differences between the book-hand style and the verse-hand are
                          > > not very big, in my opinion.
                          >
                          > The differences between the angular style and the book-hand aren't
                          > very big either, except for the angles, of course, which I consider to
                          > be of secondary importance for the "radical form".

                          I agree with you that the angular form of the letters is of secondary
                          importance, but in my opinion, so are the few peculiarities of the
                          decorated verse-hand.


                          > Some more samples of DTS 17 being closer to the book-hand: The tengwa
                          > hyarmen of the book-hand and of DTS 17 have both a straight longer
                          > stroke, whereas it's curved in DTS 18; the tengwa esse looks more
                          > composed in the book-hand and in DTS 17 than in DTS 18; the down part
                          > of the tengwa rómen has a very marked lambe-like curl in DTS 18
                          > whereas it doesn't in the book-hand and in DTS 17.

                          I agree that the letters in DTS 17 are much more constrained in their
                          design than those in DTS 18. This I think is due partly to the
                          requirements of adapting the letters to a 'pointed' style, partly to
                          space restraints caused by the use of a very broad calligraphy pen.

                          But the deviations of DTS 18 are very small, and often not greater
                          than in, say, DTS 10 (which I think is a prime example of the
                          book-hand). None of the examples you give (<hyarmen> being more
                          curved, <esse> being "less composed", <rómen> having a larger lower
                          curl) remove any significant traits from the letters.

                          I argue that if the /W/ tengwa of DTS 18 is meant to be a <rómen
                          nuquerna>, then it has lost the significant trait of the inward bow,
                          and thus been distorted more than any other letter in that sample.


                          > > > [...]
                          > >
                          > > But if I have understood your theory correctly, it requires an
                          > > extra hypothetical step for the /w/ tengwa of DTS 17,
                          >
                          > You're referring to the "diminished height", I guess. Lambe doesn't
                          > need to be as tall as tinco, and the reversed lambe is also higher
                          > than the númen-hight, especially in the first instances in DTS 17.
                          > Towards the end of the sample, the lambes grow taller and the "lambe
                          > nuquerna" smaller. What's your explanation of the different heights?

                          As I see it, the greater <lambe> height and the slighter /w/-tengwa
                          height remain consistent, with slight variations. Agreed, the smallest
                          <lambe> (in line 2?) is more or less the same height as the tallest
                          /w/-tengwa (in line 4?), but generally <lambe> is higher (cp for
                          instance the /w/-tengwa and the <lambe> in line 2).


                          > You may also be referring to the diagonal stroke being attached to the
                          > end of the horizontal one rather than to the middle. A possible
                          > explanation is that in the "reversed lambe", it's easier to achieve
                          > the same left-right extension of the "lúva" and the horizontal stroke.
                          > I have to admit this is an extra hypothetical step.

                          Don't you think it might be significant that the diagonal stroke is
                          attached to the end of the horizontal in *all* our samples of this
                          tengwa, including DTS 16, 17, 18, and 23? If the pointed style is
                          indeed closer to the "radical form" than the decorated verse-hand,
                          shouldn't we somewhere, in some sample, expect a "genuine" turned <lambe>?


                          > > *as well
                          > > as* both the /w/ and the /W/ tengwar of DTS 18, namely, that
                          > > these have in shape been removed from their hypothetical origins
                          > > as reversed <lambe> and <rómen>.
                          >
                          > I see these as a natural transformation due to the swifter pen
                          > movements. If you insist, you could call this a hypothesis: The shapes
                          > are conditioned by the general style of the specimen.

                          As pointed out above, these would be the only letters so markedly
                          distorted in this style.


                          > > Also, in retrospect, I don't
                          > > think an intentional approach toward the shape of a reversed
                          > > <rómen> is really required for my theory; the pointed-style /W/
                          > > tengwa may have gotten this shape for many reasons (desire to
                          > > distinguish it more clearly from <hyarmen>, to rely less heavily
                          > > on a thin /-slanting line, or
                          >
                          > These arguments exclusively apply to DTS 17; why don't they apply in
                          > DTS 18 as well? I'd like to have arguments that don't depend on DTS
                          > numbers or on:
                          >
                          > > merely artistic license).

                          Well, suffice to say that the one, singular attested sample of a
                          /W/-tengwa with the shape of a turned <rómen> remains a mystery (if
                          not a very great one), and that all other samples form a continuum
                          leading up to the "cursive <hwesta sindarinwa>" in DTS 37.


                          > [...]
                          >
                          > I said that it would be possible to prove your hypothesis if it were
                          > true, that is, not a real prove of course, but finding very strong
                          > arguments from an analysis of the tengwar shapes in DTS 18. Do the
                          > shapes required by a reversed rómen occur?

                          Well, a curve possibly corresponding to the bow of a reversed <rómen>
                          may perhaps be found in <silme> or <vilya>, or the "e" tengwa of this
                          mode. The rest of a reversed <rómen> (the upward swash and the right
                          leg) could of course be written as in the /W/-tengwa.


                          > [...]
                          >
                          > > > You're saying that the "Bombadil-mode" w and wh tengwar are
                          > > > not reversed forms of lambe and rómen but may accidently
                          > > > (because of reanalysis) be replaced by reversed lambe and
                          > > > rómen. For unknown reasons, Tolkien stopped using them.
                          > >
                          > > As I see it, the "accident" occurs only once, in DTS 17, where
                          > > the /W/ letter appears as an allograph reminiscent of an
                          > > upside-down <rómen>. In all other occurrences, the /W/ letter
                          > > deviates from that form. Nowhere else does it have the
                          > > inward-closed bow of <rómen>.
                          >
                          > That's true. It's the weak spot of my hypothesis that it takes the far
                          > less numerous sample as the "radical form". But you haven't given me
                          > any arguments that would explain the reversed-rómen form.

                          I have, though not strong arguments (as you rightly pointed out). On
                          the other hand, I don't think your arguments for the /W/-tengwa in DTS
                          18 being a distorted <rómen nuquerna> are very strong either, and in
                          my opoinion they are further weakened by the occurrence of a closely
                          similar tengwa in other sources.


                          > > The /w/ tengwa is often quite similar to a turned <lambe>, but
                          > > the only thing speaking for a closer relationship is that
                          > > similarity (and analogy with the supposed "turned <rómen>"). If
                          > > it is related, why is there any deviations at all -- even in DTS
                          > > 17, where the turned <rómen> occurs?
                          >
                          > You're implying that "reversed" letters should be perfectly symmetric
                          > to their unreversed counterparts. I'm happy I don't have to prove that
                          > esse nuquerna is a reversed esse -- it might be difficult against such
                          > a fierce opponent as you! :)

                          I'm only fierce when whining doesn't work ;-)

                          I don't require that turned forms of letters are in perfect symmetry
                          with their normal form. In fact, even if we did not know it for a
                          fact, <esse nuquerna> has many characteristics that strongly imply
                          that it is a turned <esse>: it has the same sound value as <esse>, it
                          is used as an allograph of that tengwa in several sources, and in all
                          sources it is consistently drawn as two bows turned opposite to those
                          in <esse>, clearly hinting at a relationship. The supposed <rómen
                          nuquerna> lacks all these characteristics.

                          I think my point was not made very clearly in my previous post. As I
                          see it, the only thing speaking for a relationship between the
                          /W/-tengwa and <rómen> is that they are perfectly symmetrical in shape
                          in DTS 17. Would you be so willing to believe in a <rómen nuquerna> if
                          the /W/-tengwa looked like, say, a mirrored <hyarmen>? The theory of a
                          <lambe nuquerna> seems to me to rest on even shakier grounds, since
                          the /w/-tengwa lacks even the perfect symmetry with <lambe> (in a
                          source of writing supposedly very close to the "radical form").


                          > Of course, the similarity is the most important argument for a closer
                          > relationship of these letters. But it's not the only thing that speaks
                          > for a closer relationship: Another hint is the fact these letters were
                          > abandoned, that is, "lambe nuquerna" was totally abandoned and "rómen
                          > nuquerna" was reanalyzed and changed in shape. I don't know of other
                          > abandoned tengwar at all.

                          Well, that might be just a matter of scarce sources. But speaking of
                          abandoned tengwar, the initial "schwa" tengwa comes to mind (the one
                          looking like a stem with a horisontal bar connecting it to the
                          following tengwa). (In "a merry", DTS 16-18.)


                          > > New material published recently has made me consider a quite
                          > > different origin for the /w/ letter. In "Addenda and Corrigenda
                          > > to the _Etymologies_ - Part Two" in _Vinyar Tengwar_ #46, a
                          > > tengwa named _waiya_ > _vaiya_ is given: it looks like an <úre>
                          > > with a short tail, or slightly like a Q with the tail being
                          > > straight, horizontal and starting at the bottom middle of the
                          > > circle. The writing is rough, but it appears as if Tolkien
                          > > started the circle at the bottom, drew counterclockwise and
                          > > continued a short distance to the right as he reached the bottom
                          > > again.
                          > >
                          > > It seems plausible to me that this letter could be the origin of
                          > > the "2"-shaped tengwa found in DTS 16, 17 and 18.
                          >
                          > Interesting hypothesis. However, the "Bombadil-mode" w-tengwa is
                          > always open. And why should this tengwa be made more lambe-like?

                          A good question, and one that I won't delve into at the moment. It is
                          not crucial for the current discussion. :-)


                          > What development is parallel to a "reversed rómen" shape originating
                          > in a hwinde/hwesta sindarinwa shape? I don't know any at all.

                          I can't think of any either, but I don't find that very surprising
                          given that we only have two document pages that constitute samples of
                          the pointed style (except the "Namárie" headline in DTS 20).


                          > If I'm not wrong about the dates, the "Bombadil mode" samples might
                          > predate the Etymologies. The latter were written in the later 1930s,
                          > and the former may have been written already in the early 1930s. So
                          > this sample would also fit in my explanation that hwesta
                          > sindarinwa/hwinde was a reanalysis of a rómen nuquerna, and it would
                          > show another "experimental" w-tengwa.

                          It is probably true that DTS 16-18 predate the Etymologies, and the
                          <waiya>-tengwa might be "experimental", as you say. Still, it doesn't
                          feel to me like a probable scenario that <hwesta sindarinwa> was
                          developed from reanalysis of <rómen nuquerna>. Note that it is the
                          "upright", normal <hwesta sindarinwa> of DTS 9 that is found in the
                          Etymologies, not the cursive form of DTS 37.

                          (By the way, if the Etymologies postdates DTS 16-18, then <waiya>
                          would be developed from the /w/-tengwa of the "Bombadil-mode", rather
                          than the other way round. The later tengwa is thus "closed", made
                          *less* "lambe-like" as you put it. This should be an interesting topic
                          of research for a later time.)


                          > > > I'm saying that the "Bombadil-mode" w and wh tengwar are
                          > > > reversed forms of lambe and rómen but may accidently
                          > > > (conditioned by pen movement) look dissimilar. The reason why
                          > > > Tolkien stopped using them was because he saw that the sounds
                          > > > they represented weren't related to the sounds represented by
                          > > > lambe and rómen.
                          > >
                          > > Why would Tolkien have started using reversed <lambe> and
                          > > <rómen> for /w/ and /W/ in the first place?
                          >
                          > I don't know. He needed tengwar for these two sounds. Could it be that
                          > this assignment was only made in English? This might explain why he
                          > was less scrupulous.

                          Now we are simply guessing; but I have the feeling Tolkien usually had
                          his own language foremost in his mind when developing his scripts --
                          either that, or phonetic applicability in general. Of the published
                          Tengwar and Sarati texts written in the first half of the 20th
                          century, the vast majority is in English.


                          > Your hypothesis doesn't explain why he abandoned them if they were
                          > distinct from rómen and lambe.

                          As stated earlier, I don't think he abandoned the /W/-tengwa seen in
                          DTS 16-18 -- in my opinion the /W/-tengwa of DTS 37 is the same one.
                          As for the /w/-tengwa, I concede that it may very well have been a
                          passing idea, but I don't think it must have had anything to do with
                          <lambe>.


                          > > > [...]
                          >
                          > My bad English. (1) "lambe nuquerna" and "rómen nuquerna"; (2)
                          > comprehension that this doesn't work; (3) experimenting with other
                          > forms; (4) vala (or other depending on mode) and hwesta sindarinwa.

                          See my comments above.


                          > > In DTS 22,
                          > > written in 1937, <rómen> is used for /r/, and it is so used in
                          > > _The Etymologies_, and DTS 17 which of course is the source of
                          > > "turned <rómen>". The earliest occurrence of <rómen> for /w/
                          > > that I can think of is DTS 10, "possibly" written 1948 but very
                          > > likely postdating DTS 17.
                          >
                          > Of course. DTS 50 and 51 were probably written in late 1946.

                          Right. I didn't think of ol' Lowdham. :)


                          > It's
                          > interesting that the vala/hwesta sindarinwa solution predates this
                          > (DTS 25 at the end of 1939). The final forms don't need to be the last
                          > developed.

                          I'm may be confused, but I can't find any evidence in DTS 25 (The
                          Doors of Durin (Inscription Drafts)) of the <vala>/<hwesta sindarinwa>
                          solution. What am I missing?


                          > > > I think my hypothesis has a number of advantages over yours:
                          > > >
                          > > > (1) It explains why the forms were abandoned.
                          > >
                          > > And I don't think they were. (Possibly <waiya>, if I may use
                          > > that name, but not the cursive <hwesta sindarinwa>.)
                          >
                          > I've missed my own point. Here it is again: My hypothesis explains why
                          > the "lambe nuquerna" was abandoned.

                          I am sure I have commented on this somewhere already. ;-)



                          > > > (2) It explains why there was much variations in the sign for
                          > > > w and wh.
                          > >
                          > > The variation is not that big, in my opinion. It is usually just
                          > > a matter of swoop. :-)
                          >
                          > It's in comparison to other sounds.

                          Yes, you are right about that. The /w/ sign of DTS 16-18 does show an
                          unusual amount of variation.


                          > > > (3) It explains the similarity between the "Bombadil mode"
                          > > > wh-tengwa and hwesta sindarinwa.
                          > >
                          > > Since my own theory doesn't conflict with yours on this point, I
                          > > agree.
                          >
                          > I've missed my own point again. Here it goes: My hypothesis explains
                          > the similarities and the differences between the "Bombadil mode"
                          > wh-tengwa and hwesta sindarinwa.

                          While I agree that <hwesta sindarinwa> may have originated in a
                          cursive form, I am not convinced that that cursive form in turn must
                          have originated in a <rómen nuquerna>. It is clear to me that the
                          /W/-tengwa of the DTS 16-18 period had an allograph (in the pointed
                          style) that looked exactly like an upside-down <rómen>. But all other
                          allographs of this grapheme are more similar to the /W/-tengwa of DTS
                          23 and 37.

                          To return to the origins of this thread: in a font that follows the
                          'pointed' style, the /W/-tengwa (for lack of a better name) should, in
                          my opinion, appear as a turned <rómen>. But if the font follows rather
                          the book-hand, the /W/-tengwa should be based on the forms in DTS 37,
                          23, and 18.

                          Yours,

                          Måns
                        • j_mach_wust
                          I fear we won t come to an agreement on the reversed rómen/lambe hypothesis . My hypothesis that they re reverted rómen/lambe seems not to convince you, and
                          Message 12 of 14 , Dec 15, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I fear we won't come to an agreement on the "reversed rómen/lambe
                            hypothesis". My hypothesis that they're reverted rómen/lambe seems not
                            to convince you, and your hypothesis that they're independent tengwar
                            won't convince me. I see underlying rómen and lambe, and I find
                            arguments for it; you see independent tengwar, and you find arguments
                            for it.

                            Måns and me wrote alternatly:
                            > > Some more samples of DTS 17 being closer to the book-hand: The
                            > > tengwa hyarmen of the book-hand and of DTS 17 have both a straight
                            > > longer stroke, whereas it's curved in DTS 18; the tengwa esse
                            > > looks more composed in the book-hand and in DTS 17 than in DTS 18;
                            > > the down part of the tengwa rómen has a very marked lambe-like
                            > > curl in DTS 18 whereas it doesn't in the book-hand and in DTS 17.
                            >
                            > I agree that the letters in DTS 17 are much more constrained in
                            > their design than those in DTS 18.

                            At a first glance I thought you were admitting that DTS 17 is closer
                            to the "radical form" and that therefore, you'd have to agree that the
                            unambiguous "rómen nuquerna" of DTS 17 absolutly must be considered.
                            At a second glance, I realize that you'll still not agree since you've
                            only conceded that it is "constrained" and not that it would be closer
                            to the "radical form"...


                            > But the deviations of DTS 18 are very small, and often not greater
                            > than in, say, DTS 10 (which I think is a prime example of the
                            > book-hand).

                            I was only thinking of (that is, comparing to) the chart from app. E,
                            DTS 9.

                            > None of the examples you give (<hyarmen> being more
                            > curved, <esse> being "less composed", <rómen> having a larger lower
                            > curl) remove any significant traits from the letters.
                            >
                            > I argue that if the /W/ tengwa of DTS 18 is meant to be a <rómen
                            > nuquerna>, then it has lost the significant trait of the inward bow,
                            > and thus been distorted more than any other letter in that sample.

                            The significancy of the traits is a circular argument: They only
                            become significant because you believe that it's different tengwar.


                            > If the pointed style is
                            > indeed closer to the "radical form" than the decorated verse-hand,
                            > shouldn't we somewhere, in some sample, expect a "genuine" turned
                            > <lambe>?

                            That's right, my hypothesis implies a still more "radical", but
                            unattested form where lambe and "lambe nuquerna" look identical. I'd
                            only expect a "genuine" "reversed lambe" on DTS 9.


                            > > > the pointed-style /W/
                            > > > tengwa may have gotten this shape for many reasons (desire to
                            > > > distinguish it more clearly from <hyarmen>, to rely less heavily
                            > > > on a thin /-slanting line, or
                            > >
                            > > These arguments exclusively apply to DTS 17; why don't they apply
                            > > in DTS 18 as well? I'd like to have arguments that don't depend on
                            > > DTS numbers or on:
                            > >
                            > > > merely artistic license).
                            >
                            > Well, suffice to say that the one, singular attested sample of a
                            > /W/-tengwa with the shape of a turned <rómen> remains a mystery (if
                            > not a very great one), and that all other samples form a continuum
                            > leading up to the "cursive <hwesta sindarinwa>" in DTS 37.

                            In science, you only need a single counterexample for a theory to be
                            rebutted. (For sure, this is not science but philology, that is,
                            interpretation.) I claim that my interpretation produces no mysterious
                            left-overs.


                            > > Do the shapes required by a reversed rómen occur?
                            >
                            > Well, a curve possibly corresponding to the bow of a reversed
                            > <rómen> may perhaps be found in <silme> or <vilya>, or the "e"
                            > tengwa of this mode. The rest of a reversed <rómen> (the upward
                            > swash and the right leg) could of course be written as in the
                            > /W/-tengwa.

                            I've found a sample of a straightened rightward bow, that is, of the
                            same alternation as between the "rómen nuquerna" tengwar of DTS 17 and
                            18: Compare DTS 20 rómen with other rómen, or compare the first three
                            occurences of rómen in the second line of DTS 51 with the fourth one
                            (you'll probably insist that it's unique)!

                            The Lowdham-texts show also another example of a sign with variable
                            heighth: the Anglosaxon &-sign: It's short in DTS 50 and tall in DTS 51.

                            And that's not enough: There are also samples of that look like an
                            inverted _2_: In the second part of DTS 50, the deleted one on line 25
                            (you'll probably argue it isn't a lambe at all) and the very last one
                            of line 27 (you'll probably argue it's really composed like the others).

                            The mere existence of single instances of these variations make it
                            more probable that the same kind of variation is found in the supposed
                            "lambe nuquerna" and "rómen nuquerna".


                            > I don't think your arguments for the /W/-tengwa in
                            > DTS 18 being a distorted <rómen nuquerna> are very strong either,
                            > and in my opoinion they are further weakened by the occurrence of a
                            > closely similar tengwa in other sources.

                            You're speaking of the wh-tengwa in DTS 37, right? This tengwa isn't
                            any more similar to the one of DTS 18 than the one of DTS 17 is.
                            However, the similarities of DTS 17 and 18 are undoubtingly much
                            bigger than the ones between DTS 18 and 37, so I tend to associate the
                            wh-tengwa of DTS 18 with the one of DTS 17. Especially because DTS 37
                            uses the same w-tehta as other later modes, vala, I believe that the
                            wh-tehta of DTS 37 is a cursive form of hwesta sindarinwa (coexisting
                            with the straight form and probably predating it as an intermediate
                            form between from the "rómen nuquerna").


                            > I don't require that turned forms of letters are in perfect symmetry
                            > with their normal form. In fact, even if we did not know it for a
                            > fact, <esse nuquerna> has many characteristics that strongly imply
                            > that it is a turned <esse>: it has the same sound value as <esse>,
                            > it is used as an allograph of that tengwa in several sources, and in
                            > all sources it is consistently drawn as two bows turned opposite to
                            > those in <esse>, clearly hinting at a relationship. The supposed
                            > <rómen nuquerna> lacks all these characteristics.

                            It's obvious that it lacks the first two characteristics of bearing
                            the same sound value and being an allograph. It's an important point
                            in my argumentation that the supposed "rómen nuquerna" and "lambe
                            nuquerna" have different sound values and are not allographs of rómen
                            and lambe. Looking at DTS 21 (the only sample I remember that has both
                            except for the charts), however, I think that the differences in shape
                            between esse and esse nuquerna are as big as the differences in shape
                            between the lambe/rómen etc.: Esse looks like two silme, esse nuquerna
                            like a _3_.

                            And still another difference between an upright tengwa and a reversed
                            one: In all instances of malta in DTS 18, the closing horizontal
                            stroke begins in the telco, whereas in all instances of nwalme, it
                            exeeds it, most of the times very markedly. I believe it's common for
                            reversed forms to deviate from the upright forms. Have you ever seen
                            anybody drawing a schwa or a reversed a (the IPA signs corresponding
                            to [6] or to [Q])? I don't call these "distorsions", but "natural"
                            deviations.


                            > > Of course, the similarity is the most important argument for a
                            > > closer relationship of these letters. But it's not the only thing
                            > > that speaks for a closer relationship: Another hint is the fact
                            > > these letters were abandoned, that is, "lambe nuquerna" was
                            > > totally abandoned and "rómen nuquerna" was reanalyzed and changed
                            > > in shape. I don't know of other abandoned tengwar at all.
                            >
                            > Well, that might be just a matter of scarce sources. But speaking of
                            > abandoned tengwar, the initial "schwa" tengwa comes to mind (the one
                            > looking like a stem with a horisontal bar connecting it to the
                            > following tengwa). (In "a merry", DTS 16-18.)

                            Right, this tengwa wasn't used in DTS 24 any more. There is also much
                            variance in the representation of schwa! But the schwa representation
                            was already complex in the "Bombadil modes", so I'm not surprised that
                            it changed, whereas according to your hypothesis, there were two
                            clearly distinct tengwar for /w/ and /W/.


                            > > What development is parallel to a "reversed rómen" shape
                            > > originating in a hwinde/hwesta sindarinwa shape? I don't know any
                            > > at all.
                            >
                            > I can't think of any either, but I don't find that very surprising
                            > given that we only have two document pages that constitute samples
                            > of the pointed style (except the "Namárie" headline in DTS 20).

                            It doesn't need to be one of the "few" parallels in tengwar, I'd also
                            be interested in one of the "many parallels in Roman writing" you alluded.


                            > It is probably true that DTS 16-18 predate the Etymologies, and the
                            > <waiya>-tengwa might be "experimental", as you say. Still, it
                            > doesn't feel to me like a probable scenario that <hwesta sindarinwa>
                            > was developed from reanalysis of <rómen nuquerna>. Note that it is
                            > the "upright", normal <hwesta sindarinwa> of DTS 9 that is found in
                            > the Etymologies, not the cursive form of DTS 37.

                            If I am to uphold that hwesta sindarinwa is a reanalysis of the
                            supposed "rómen nuquerna", then I have to assume that the
                            "intermediate" form seen in DTS 37 already existed when the
                            etymologies were written (as written above).


                            > (By the way, if the Etymologies postdates DTS 16-18, then <waiya>
                            > would be developed from the /w/-tengwa of the "Bombadil-mode",
                            > rather than the other way round. The later tengwa is thus "closed",
                            > made *less* "lambe-like" as you put it. This should be an
                            > interesting topic of research for a later time.)

                            Indeed! (I hope that one day we will be able to look back and wonder
                            how we could speculate so much on so few published samples! ;-)


                            > I have the feeling Tolkien usually
                            > had his own language foremost in his mind when developing his
                            > scripts -- either that, or phonetic applicability in general.

                            I share the feeling that most of it was based on English!


                            > Of the
                            > published Tengwar and Sarati texts written in the first half of the
                            > 20th century, the vast majority is in English.

                            Published, but alas, not publicly available... when PE 13 was still
                            available, I wasn't that much into Tolkien's scripts yet, and now I
                            regret it so much!


                            > > Your hypothesis doesn't explain why he abandoned them if they were
                            > > distinct from rómen and lambe.
                            >
                            > As stated earlier, I don't think he abandoned the /W/-tengwa seen in
                            > DTS 16-18 -- in my opinion the /W/-tengwa of DTS 37 is the same one.
                            > As for the /w/-tengwa, I concede that it may very well have been a
                            > passing idea, but I don't think it must have had anything to do with
                            > <lambe>.

                            Are you going to tell me you believe that the wh-tengwa of DTS 18 is
                            an allograph of hwesta sindarinwa? Is it the same tengwa? If it is,
                            what happened that it changed so much? If it is not, why was it
                            replaced? (See also above.)


                            > I may be confused, but I can't find any evidence in DTS 25 (The
                            > Doors of Durin (Inscription Drafts)) of the <vala>/<hwesta
                            > sindarinwa> solution. What am I missing?

                            My bad, I thought of DTS 24, but I had the wrong DTS number in mind (I
                            still don't know them all by heart :-).


                            > > My hypothesis explains why the "lambe nuquerna" was abandoned.
                            >
                            > I am sure I have commented on this somewhere already. ;-)

                            Yes you have. You've said: "As for the /w/-tengwa, I concede that it
                            may very well have been a passing idea". From this, I understand that
                            you can't explain it.


                            > > > > (2) It explains why there was much variations in the sign for
                            > > > > w and wh.
                            > > >
                            > > > The variation is not that big, in my opinion. It is usually just
                            > > > a matter of swoop. :-)
                            > >
                            > > It's in comparison to other sounds.
                            >
                            > Yes, you are right about that. The /w/ sign of DTS 16-18 does show
                            > an unusual amount of variation.

                            I've missed the point again (gee, it's difficult to talk about these
                            things without using your fingers!): Looking at all the tengwar
                            samples, the sounds /w/ and /W/ have a bigger number of signs they can
                            be represented with (and not just in terms of allography) than the
                            other sounds. My hypothesis takes this into account.


                            > > My hypothesis
                            > > explains the similarities and the differences between the
                            > > "Bombadil mode" wh-tengwa and hwesta sindarinwa.
                            >
                            > While I agree that <hwesta sindarinwa> may have originated in a
                            > cursive form, I am not convinced that that cursive form in turn must
                            > have originated in a <rómen nuquerna>.

                            The cursive form hwesta sindarinwa originated in would be the one of
                            DTS 37.


                            > To return to the origins of this thread: in a font that follows the
                            > 'pointed' style, the /W/-tengwa (for lack of a better name) should,
                            > in my opinion, appear as a turned <rómen>. But if the font follows
                            > rather the book-hand, the /W/-tengwa should be based on the forms in
                            > DTS 37, 23, and 18.

                            I disagree! I'd suggest to have two different wh-tengwar for each
                            font: In the angular style, a "rómen nuquerna" and a hwesta
                            sindarinwa; in the upright book-hand style a "rómen nuquerna" (similar
                            to the one in DTS 18, but maybe a little bit more like the one in DTS
                            17) and a hwesta sindarinwa; in a cursive book-hand style a "rómen
                            nuquerna" (as in DTS 18) and a hwesta sindarinwa (as in DTS 37).

                            I believe it's important to keep these apart, just as you should keep
                            the w-tengwa of the "Bombadil-modes" apart from later w-tengwar.

                            ---------------------------
                            j. 'mach' wust
                            http://machhezan.tripod.com
                            ---------------------------
                          • Måns Björkman
                            I suspect you are right in saying that we won t come to an agreement regarding the w/wh tengwar. (On that much we agree! ;-) Perhaps future publications will
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jan 12, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I suspect you are right in saying that we won't come to an agreement
                              regarding the w/wh tengwar. (On that much we agree! ;-) Perhaps future
                              publications will prove one of us right, perhaps not. I think I will
                              leave it at this for now.

                              Yours,
                              Måns



                              --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <machhezan@g...> wrote:
                              >
                              > I fear we won't come to an agreement on the "reversed rómen/lambe
                              > hypothesis". My hypothesis that they're reverted rómen/lambe seems not
                              > to convince you, and your hypothesis that they're independent tengwar
                              > won't convince me. I see underlying rómen and lambe, and I find
                              > arguments for it; you see independent tengwar, and you find arguments
                              > for it.
                              >
                              > Måns and me wrote alternatly:
                              > > > Some more samples of DTS 17 being closer to the book-hand: The
                              > > > tengwa hyarmen of the book-hand and of DTS 17 have both a straight
                              > > > longer stroke, whereas it's curved in DTS 18; the tengwa esse
                              > > > looks more composed in the book-hand and in DTS 17 than in DTS 18;
                              > > > the down part of the tengwa rómen has a very marked lambe-like
                              > > > curl in DTS 18 whereas it doesn't in the book-hand and in DTS 17.
                              > >
                              > > I agree that the letters in DTS 17 are much more constrained in
                              > > their design than those in DTS 18.
                              >
                              > At a first glance I thought you were admitting that DTS 17 is closer
                              > to the "radical form" and that therefore, you'd have to agree that the
                              > unambiguous "rómen nuquerna" of DTS 17 absolutly must be considered.
                              > At a second glance, I realize that you'll still not agree since you've
                              > only conceded that it is "constrained" and not that it would be closer
                              > to the "radical form"...
                              >
                              >
                              > > But the deviations of DTS 18 are very small, and often not greater
                              > > than in, say, DTS 10 (which I think is a prime example of the
                              > > book-hand).
                              >
                              > I was only thinking of (that is, comparing to) the chart from app. E,
                              > DTS 9.
                              >
                              > > None of the examples you give (<hyarmen> being more
                              > > curved, <esse> being "less composed", <rómen> having a larger lower
                              > > curl) remove any significant traits from the letters.
                              > >
                              > > I argue that if the /W/ tengwa of DTS 18 is meant to be a <rómen
                              > > nuquerna>, then it has lost the significant trait of the inward bow,
                              > > and thus been distorted more than any other letter in that sample.
                              >
                              > The significancy of the traits is a circular argument: They only
                              > become significant because you believe that it's different tengwar.
                              >
                              >
                              > > If the pointed style is
                              > > indeed closer to the "radical form" than the decorated verse-hand,
                              > > shouldn't we somewhere, in some sample, expect a "genuine" turned
                              > > <lambe>?
                              >
                              > That's right, my hypothesis implies a still more "radical", but
                              > unattested form where lambe and "lambe nuquerna" look identical. I'd
                              > only expect a "genuine" "reversed lambe" on DTS 9.
                              >
                              >
                              > > > > the pointed-style /W/
                              > > > > tengwa may have gotten this shape for many reasons (desire to
                              > > > > distinguish it more clearly from <hyarmen>, to rely less heavily
                              > > > > on a thin /-slanting line, or
                              > > >
                              > > > These arguments exclusively apply to DTS 17; why don't they apply
                              > > > in DTS 18 as well? I'd like to have arguments that don't depend on
                              > > > DTS numbers or on:
                              > > >
                              > > > > merely artistic license).
                              > >
                              > > Well, suffice to say that the one, singular attested sample of a
                              > > /W/-tengwa with the shape of a turned <rómen> remains a mystery (if
                              > > not a very great one), and that all other samples form a continuum
                              > > leading up to the "cursive <hwesta sindarinwa>" in DTS 37.
                              >
                              > In science, you only need a single counterexample for a theory to be
                              > rebutted. (For sure, this is not science but philology, that is,
                              > interpretation.) I claim that my interpretation produces no mysterious
                              > left-overs.
                              >
                              >
                              > > > Do the shapes required by a reversed rómen occur?
                              > >
                              > > Well, a curve possibly corresponding to the bow of a reversed
                              > > <rómen> may perhaps be found in <silme> or <vilya>, or the "e"
                              > > tengwa of this mode. The rest of a reversed <rómen> (the upward
                              > > swash and the right leg) could of course be written as in the
                              > > /W/-tengwa.
                              >
                              > I've found a sample of a straightened rightward bow, that is, of the
                              > same alternation as between the "rómen nuquerna" tengwar of DTS 17 and
                              > 18: Compare DTS 20 rómen with other rómen, or compare the first three
                              > occurences of rómen in the second line of DTS 51 with the fourth one
                              > (you'll probably insist that it's unique)!
                              >
                              > The Lowdham-texts show also another example of a sign with variable
                              > heighth: the Anglosaxon &-sign: It's short in DTS 50 and tall in DTS 51.
                              >
                              > And that's not enough: There are also samples of that look like an
                              > inverted _2_: In the second part of DTS 50, the deleted one on line 25
                              > (you'll probably argue it isn't a lambe at all) and the very last one
                              > of line 27 (you'll probably argue it's really composed like the others).
                              >
                              > The mere existence of single instances of these variations make it
                              > more probable that the same kind of variation is found in the supposed
                              > "lambe nuquerna" and "rómen nuquerna".
                              >
                              >
                              > > I don't think your arguments for the /W/-tengwa in
                              > > DTS 18 being a distorted <rómen nuquerna> are very strong either,
                              > > and in my opoinion they are further weakened by the occurrence of a
                              > > closely similar tengwa in other sources.
                              >
                              > You're speaking of the wh-tengwa in DTS 37, right? This tengwa isn't
                              > any more similar to the one of DTS 18 than the one of DTS 17 is.
                              > However, the similarities of DTS 17 and 18 are undoubtingly much
                              > bigger than the ones between DTS 18 and 37, so I tend to associate the
                              > wh-tengwa of DTS 18 with the one of DTS 17. Especially because DTS 37
                              > uses the same w-tehta as other later modes, vala, I believe that the
                              > wh-tehta of DTS 37 is a cursive form of hwesta sindarinwa (coexisting
                              > with the straight form and probably predating it as an intermediate
                              > form between from the "rómen nuquerna").
                              >
                              >
                              > > I don't require that turned forms of letters are in perfect symmetry
                              > > with their normal form. In fact, even if we did not know it for a
                              > > fact, <esse nuquerna> has many characteristics that strongly imply
                              > > that it is a turned <esse>: it has the same sound value as <esse>,
                              > > it is used as an allograph of that tengwa in several sources, and in
                              > > all sources it is consistently drawn as two bows turned opposite to
                              > > those in <esse>, clearly hinting at a relationship. The supposed
                              > > <rómen nuquerna> lacks all these characteristics.
                              >
                              > It's obvious that it lacks the first two characteristics of bearing
                              > the same sound value and being an allograph. It's an important point
                              > in my argumentation that the supposed "rómen nuquerna" and "lambe
                              > nuquerna" have different sound values and are not allographs of rómen
                              > and lambe. Looking at DTS 21 (the only sample I remember that has both
                              > except for the charts), however, I think that the differences in shape
                              > between esse and esse nuquerna are as big as the differences in shape
                              > between the lambe/rómen etc.: Esse looks like two silme, esse nuquerna
                              > like a _3_.
                              >
                              > And still another difference between an upright tengwa and a reversed
                              > one: In all instances of malta in DTS 18, the closing horizontal
                              > stroke begins in the telco, whereas in all instances of nwalme, it
                              > exeeds it, most of the times very markedly. I believe it's common for
                              > reversed forms to deviate from the upright forms. Have you ever seen
                              > anybody drawing a schwa or a reversed a (the IPA signs corresponding
                              > to [6] or to [Q])? I don't call these "distorsions", but "natural"
                              > deviations.
                              >
                              >
                              > > > Of course, the similarity is the most important argument for a
                              > > > closer relationship of these letters. But it's not the only thing
                              > > > that speaks for a closer relationship: Another hint is the fact
                              > > > these letters were abandoned, that is, "lambe nuquerna" was
                              > > > totally abandoned and "rómen nuquerna" was reanalyzed and changed
                              > > > in shape. I don't know of other abandoned tengwar at all.
                              > >
                              > > Well, that might be just a matter of scarce sources. But speaking of
                              > > abandoned tengwar, the initial "schwa" tengwa comes to mind (the one
                              > > looking like a stem with a horisontal bar connecting it to the
                              > > following tengwa). (In "a merry", DTS 16-18.)
                              >
                              > Right, this tengwa wasn't used in DTS 24 any more. There is also much
                              > variance in the representation of schwa! But the schwa representation
                              > was already complex in the "Bombadil modes", so I'm not surprised that
                              > it changed, whereas according to your hypothesis, there were two
                              > clearly distinct tengwar for /w/ and /W/.
                              >
                              >
                              > > > What development is parallel to a "reversed rómen" shape
                              > > > originating in a hwinde/hwesta sindarinwa shape? I don't know any
                              > > > at all.
                              > >
                              > > I can't think of any either, but I don't find that very surprising
                              > > given that we only have two document pages that constitute samples
                              > > of the pointed style (except the "Namárie" headline in DTS 20).
                              >
                              > It doesn't need to be one of the "few" parallels in tengwar, I'd also
                              > be interested in one of the "many parallels in Roman writing" you
                              alluded.
                              >
                              >
                              > > It is probably true that DTS 16-18 predate the Etymologies, and the
                              > > <waiya>-tengwa might be "experimental", as you say. Still, it
                              > > doesn't feel to me like a probable scenario that <hwesta sindarinwa>
                              > > was developed from reanalysis of <rómen nuquerna>. Note that it is
                              > > the "upright", normal <hwesta sindarinwa> of DTS 9 that is found in
                              > > the Etymologies, not the cursive form of DTS 37.
                              >
                              > If I am to uphold that hwesta sindarinwa is a reanalysis of the
                              > supposed "rómen nuquerna", then I have to assume that the
                              > "intermediate" form seen in DTS 37 already existed when the
                              > etymologies were written (as written above).
                              >
                              >
                              > > (By the way, if the Etymologies postdates DTS 16-18, then <waiya>
                              > > would be developed from the /w/-tengwa of the "Bombadil-mode",
                              > > rather than the other way round. The later tengwa is thus "closed",
                              > > made *less* "lambe-like" as you put it. This should be an
                              > > interesting topic of research for a later time.)
                              >
                              > Indeed! (I hope that one day we will be able to look back and wonder
                              > how we could speculate so much on so few published samples! ;-)
                              >
                              >
                              > > I have the feeling Tolkien usually
                              > > had his own language foremost in his mind when developing his
                              > > scripts -- either that, or phonetic applicability in general.
                              >
                              > I share the feeling that most of it was based on English!
                              >
                              >
                              > > Of the
                              > > published Tengwar and Sarati texts written in the first half of the
                              > > 20th century, the vast majority is in English.
                              >
                              > Published, but alas, not publicly available... when PE 13 was still
                              > available, I wasn't that much into Tolkien's scripts yet, and now I
                              > regret it so much!
                              >
                              >
                              > > > Your hypothesis doesn't explain why he abandoned them if they were
                              > > > distinct from rómen and lambe.
                              > >
                              > > As stated earlier, I don't think he abandoned the /W/-tengwa seen in
                              > > DTS 16-18 -- in my opinion the /W/-tengwa of DTS 37 is the same one.
                              > > As for the /w/-tengwa, I concede that it may very well have been a
                              > > passing idea, but I don't think it must have had anything to do with
                              > > <lambe>.
                              >
                              > Are you going to tell me you believe that the wh-tengwa of DTS 18 is
                              > an allograph of hwesta sindarinwa? Is it the same tengwa? If it is,
                              > what happened that it changed so much? If it is not, why was it
                              > replaced? (See also above.)
                              >
                              >
                              > > I may be confused, but I can't find any evidence in DTS 25 (The
                              > > Doors of Durin (Inscription Drafts)) of the <vala>/<hwesta
                              > > sindarinwa> solution. What am I missing?
                              >
                              > My bad, I thought of DTS 24, but I had the wrong DTS number in mind (I
                              > still don't know them all by heart :-).
                              >
                              >
                              > > > My hypothesis explains why the "lambe nuquerna" was abandoned.
                              > >
                              > > I am sure I have commented on this somewhere already. ;-)
                              >
                              > Yes you have. You've said: "As for the /w/-tengwa, I concede that it
                              > may very well have been a passing idea". From this, I understand that
                              > you can't explain it.
                              >
                              >
                              > > > > > (2) It explains why there was much variations in the sign for
                              > > > > > w and wh.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > The variation is not that big, in my opinion. It is usually just
                              > > > > a matter of swoop. :-)
                              > > >
                              > > > It's in comparison to other sounds.
                              > >
                              > > Yes, you are right about that. The /w/ sign of DTS 16-18 does show
                              > > an unusual amount of variation.
                              >
                              > I've missed the point again (gee, it's difficult to talk about these
                              > things without using your fingers!): Looking at all the tengwar
                              > samples, the sounds /w/ and /W/ have a bigger number of signs they can
                              > be represented with (and not just in terms of allography) than the
                              > other sounds. My hypothesis takes this into account.
                              >
                              >
                              > > > My hypothesis
                              > > > explains the similarities and the differences between the
                              > > > "Bombadil mode" wh-tengwa and hwesta sindarinwa.
                              > >
                              > > While I agree that <hwesta sindarinwa> may have originated in a
                              > > cursive form, I am not convinced that that cursive form in turn must
                              > > have originated in a <rómen nuquerna>.
                              >
                              > The cursive form hwesta sindarinwa originated in would be the one of
                              > DTS 37.
                              >
                              >
                              > > To return to the origins of this thread: in a font that follows the
                              > > 'pointed' style, the /W/-tengwa (for lack of a better name) should,
                              > > in my opinion, appear as a turned <rómen>. But if the font follows
                              > > rather the book-hand, the /W/-tengwa should be based on the forms in
                              > > DTS 37, 23, and 18.
                              >
                              > I disagree! I'd suggest to have two different wh-tengwar for each
                              > font: In the angular style, a "rómen nuquerna" and a hwesta
                              > sindarinwa; in the upright book-hand style a "rómen nuquerna" (similar
                              > to the one in DTS 18, but maybe a little bit more like the one in DTS
                              > 17) and a hwesta sindarinwa; in a cursive book-hand style a "rómen
                              > nuquerna" (as in DTS 18) and a hwesta sindarinwa (as in DTS 37).
                              >
                              > I believe it's important to keep these apart, just as you should keep
                              > the w-tengwa of the "Bombadil-modes" apart from later w-tengwar.
                              >
                              > ---------------------------
                              > j. 'mach' wust
                              > http://machhezan.tripod.com
                              > ---------------------------
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.