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

Christmas gift: Namarie analysis

Expand Messages
  • Helge K. Fauskanger
    Vicente Velasco has written out an analysis of Tolkien s Namárie transcription, as published in RGEO. I have kindly been allowed to publish it on my
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 24, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Vicente Velasco has written out an analysis of Tolkien's Namárie
      transcription, as published in RGEO. I have kindly been allowed to publish
      it on my Ardalambion site, as a nice Christmas gift to all of us. (Actually
      Vicente first sent it to me months ago, but certain software problems
      prevented me from uploading it; in the last few days a computer-expert
      friend of mine finally sorted out the problem.) It is available as a PDF
      file:

      http://www.uib.no/people/hnohf/namteng.pdf

      Some points of Vicente's analysis may stir some debate, for instance
      whether V derived from older W "should" always be spelt with the letter
      Vilya (older Wilya) rather than Vala; if so, a number of words in Tolkien's
      transcription would be misspelt. It depends on whether W became V before or
      after the spelling had been established, so this touches on diachronic
      phonology as well as the Tengwar letters as such. In some positions W
      evidently became V earlier than in other positions. However, there can be
      little doubt that the repeated use of Silme rather than Súle even where S
      represents older TH does not agree with the rules Tolkien himself set out
      in Appendix E to the LotR -- Vicente concurring with other scholars
      regarding this seeming error of Tolkien's.

      Well, Merry Christmas, everybody!

      - HKF
    • j_mach_wust
      Helge K. Fauskanger posted the following link to a commentary on DTS 19/20 by Vicente S. Velasco: http://www.uib.no/people/hnohf/namteng.pdf Thanks for
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 24, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Helge K. Fauskanger posted the following link to a commentary on DTS
        19/20 by Vicente S. Velasco:

        http://www.uib.no/people/hnohf/namteng.pdf

        Thanks for uploading this commentary. Unfortunately, I must tell you
        that Vicente S. Velasco's commentary on DTS 19/20 is far from being
        recommendable.

        He implies that the Quenya spelling described in app. E is identical
        to the spelling of DTS 19/20. Therefore, it's not an analysis but
        rather a thought-experiment about what the transcription of
        Galadriel's lament would look like if it were spelt strictly according
        to app. E (though he wasn't aware of this since he deduced certain
        claims about Quenya diachrony). He ignores that there are many
        different attested ways of spelling Quenya, and that therefore by no
        means we can imply that DTS 19/20 should be spelt according to app. E.

        The spelling used in DTS 19/20 is more phonemical than the spelling
        described in app. E, as is proven by the consistently phonemical
        spellings in "súrinen, avánier, lisse-miruvóreva, sindanóriello,
        hísie, vanwa". Note that there is not a single spelling that would
        reflect the historical phonology of Quenya instead of the modern one.
        Therefore, the reconstructions of historical pronunciations that were
        made based on the spellings of the words "ve" and "enquantuva" are
        pointless.

        Jim Allan is cited for an opinion he never expressed. The reference to
        him is made after the following sentence (on page 6): "Thus it [the
        word _hísie_] should be rendered as [_hísie_ in tengwar spelt with
        thúle]." In the reference to Jim Allan, it says: "Jim Allan expressed
        this same opinion, shared by a lot of other scholars."

        First of all, I don't care about the opinion of anonymous scholars.
        And then, Jim Allan does not say how hísie should be written, but that
        Tolkien's spelling in DTS 19/20 is different from what he would have
        expected based on app. E: "Since _hísië_ corresponds to S _hith-_ one
        would expect it to be written [_hísie_ in tengwar spelt with thúle].
        But Tolkien writes [_hísie_ in tengwar spelt with silme]." This is the
        only mention of _hísie_ on the very page Vicente S. Velasco cites, p.
        244 in "An Introduction to Elvish".


        ==================================

        ÓRE VS. RÓMEN

        In the analysis of "ar", Vicente S. Velasco implies that the
        distribution of óre and rómen in DTS 19/20 is the same as the
        historical distribution of the weak, untrilled r and the fully trilled
        one. Apart from the spellings in DTS 19/20 not representing historical
        phonology in any case we'd know of, the very name of the tengwa
        óre--which would be spelt with rómen according to the use of DTS 19/20
        (as Vicente S. Velasco affirms in note 6)--suggests that historical
        distribution of the two r-sounds is not identical to the distribution
        of the two r-signs in DTS 19/20 (and in other Quenya modes). This
        reasoning implies that the historical pronunciation of the word óre
        was with a weak, untrilled r, and is therefore hypothetical.


        ==================================

        VARIA

        yéni:
        "The letter anna does have any value in Quenya though in early Quenya
        it had the value of the back spirant [G], which later became lost.^11^
        But by the Third Age this had the value of consonantal _y_ when
        combined with the y-diacritic:"

        It's the y-diacritic that has the value _y_.

        rámar:
        not very accurate description

        enquantuva:
        Appearently, Tolkien didn't care for word separation. In an analysis
        of Tolkien's use, I don't care for the analyzers personal opinions.


        Line breaks within words are not mentioned.


        ---------------------------
        j. 'mach' wust
        http://machhezan.tripod.com
        ---------------------------
      • laurifindil
        ... DTS ... you ... Could that mean that Helge s recommendations are also FAR from being recommendable ? Could it be ? It could !
        Message 3 of 7 , Dec 27, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <machhezan@g...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Helge K. Fauskanger posted the following link to a commentary on
          DTS
          > 19/20 by Vicente S. Velasco:
          >
          > http://www.uib.no/people/hnohf/namteng.pdf
          >
          > Thanks for uploading this commentary. Unfortunately, I must tell
          you
          > that Vicente S. Velasco's commentary on DTS 19/20 is far from being
          > recommendable.

          Could that mean that Helge's "recommendations" are also FAR from
          being recommendable ? Could it be ? It could !
        • i_degilbor
          ... Does this indicate that Edouard s posts are FAR from being constructive, or anyting other than flame bait? Could it be? It could! Cuio mae, Danny.
          Message 4 of 7 , Dec 27, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Teithant Edouard Kloszko:
            > Could that mean that Helge's "recommendations" are also FAR from
            > being recommendable ? Could it be ? It could !

            Does this indicate that Edouard's posts are FAR from being constructive, or anyting other than flame bait? Could it be? It could!

            Cuio mae, Danny.
          • Helge K. Fauskanger
            For Christmas, I uploaded to my site an analysis of Tolkien s Tengwar transcript of Namárie, by Vicente Velasco: http://www.uib.no/people/hnohf/namteng.pdf
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              For Christmas, I uploaded to my site an analysis of Tolkien's Tengwar
              transcript of Namárie, by Vicente Velasco:

              http://www.uib.no/people/hnohf/namteng.pdf

              j. 'mach' wust comments:

              > Thanks for uploading this commentary. Unfortunately, I must tell you that
              Vicente S. Velasco's commentary on DTS 19/20 is far from being
              recommendable. [Velasco] implies that the Quenya spelling described in app.
              E is identical to the spelling of DTS 19/20. Therefore, it's not an
              analysis but rather a thought-experiment about what the transcription of
              Galadriel's lament would look like if it were spelt strictly according to
              app. E (though he wasn't aware of this since he deduced certain claims
              about Quenya diachrony). He ignores that there are many different attested
              ways of spelling Quenya, and that therefore by no means we can imply that
              DTS 19/20 should be spelt according to app. E.

              Yes and no. It may be noted that the Quenya spelling described in Appendix
              E is there called the normal spelling of the language, providing some basis
              for regarding it as a "standard" -- though it is clear that Tolkien did not
              always play by his own rules.

              > Jim Allan is cited for an opinion he never expressed. The reference to
              him is made after the following sentence (on page 6): "Thus it [the word
              _hísie_] should be rendered as [_hísie_ in tengwar spelt with thúle]." In
              the reference to Jim Allan, it says: "Jim Allan expressed this same
              opinion, shared by a lot of other scholars." (...) And then, Jim Allan does
              not say how hísie should be written, but that Tolkien's spelling in DTS
              19/20 is different from what he would have expected based on app. E: "Since
              _hísië_ corresponds to S _hith-_ one would expect it to be written [_hísie_
              in tengwar spelt with thúle].

              I don't think Mr. Allan is terribly misrepresented by Vicente, unless one
              is prepared to make a big issue of Vicente's somewhat normative "should"
              vs. Allan's more descriptive 'neutral observation' of the discrepancy. The
              rule that _s_ from earlier _th_ is to be represented by the letter Súle
              rather than Silme is set out in Appendix E, a part of our core cannon, and
              nothing is there said about exceptions or alternative spellings. In PM:332,
              Tolkien again states that "the older [th] was always kept distinct in
              writing from original _s_". Also, we are told that the loremasters "were
              able to insist later that the distinction between older [th] and _s_ should
              at least always be preserved in writing" (PM:356). So a "loremaster" asked
              to comment on Tolkien's transcription of the word _hísie_ would
              unquestionably dismiss this as a misspelling. On the authority of Tolkien's
              own writings, we have little choice but to conclude that in this case he
              forgot (or for some reason opted to ignore) his own rules. He "should"
              indeed have used _súle_ here, as Vicente and others have noted.
              .
              > the reconstructions of historical pronunciations that were made based on
              the spellings of the words "ve" and "enquantuva" are pointless.

              Well. In published sources at least, Tolkien doesn't explicitly say that V
              representing earlier W was still written as Vilya rather than Vala (the way
              he insists that the historical spelling persisted in the case of S from
              earlier TH). Also, in some positions W may have become V so early that it
              had already happened by the time the Tengwar spelling was established. But
              it may be noted that Vicente's suggested historical reconstruction based on
              the spelling of _ve_ (Vicente assuming that _vala_ represents V from
              earlier B) is seemingly confirmed by the likely Sindarin cognate _be_. It
              appears with a suffixed article in the King's Letter: _ben_ "according to
              the".

              I don't necessarily agree with every minute detail in Vicente's analysis,
              nor have I formally "recommended" it in the way Laurifindil suddenly
              presupposes, though obviously I wouldn't have accepted it as a contribution
              to Ardalambion if I thought it was seriously flawed. I'm sure Vicente would
              accept and appreciate constructive criticism, but it should probably be
              presented in a somewhat more diplomatic format than dismissing his entire
              effort ("far from being recommendable"? I cannot agree).

              - HKF
            • j_mach_wust
              On: http://www.uib.no/people/hnohf/namteng.pdf ... In DTS 58 (The Howlett Rivendell Inscriptions), Tolkien wrote mentioned the general use (applicable to both
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 4, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                On: http://www.uib.no/people/hnohf/namteng.pdf

                I wrote:
                > > Thanks for uploading this commentary. Unfortunately, I must
                > > tell you that Vicente S. Velasco's commentary on DTS 19/20 is
                > > far from being recommendable. [Velasco] implies that the
                > > Quenya spelling described in app. E is identical to the
                > > spelling of DTS 19/20. Therefore, it's not an analysis but
                > > rather a thought-experiment about what the transcription of
                > > Galadriel's lament would look like if it were spelt strictly
                > > according to app. E (though he wasn't aware of this since he
                > > deduced certain claims about Quenya diachrony). He ignores
                > > that there are many different attested ways of spelling
                > > Quenya, and that therefore by no means we can imply that DTS
                > > 19/20 should be spelt according to app. E.

                Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:
                > Yes and no. It may be noted that the Quenya spelling described
                > in Appendix E is there called the normal spelling of the
                > language, providing some basis for regarding it as a "standard"
                > -- though it is clear that Tolkien did not always play by his
                > own rules.

                In DTS 58 (The Howlett Rivendell Inscriptions), Tolkien wrote
                mentioned "the general use (applicable to both S. and Q) of the period
                of the tale - not the specialized Q 'classical' use seen in the letter
                names".

                This means that at the end of the Third Age, people were normally
                spelling Quenya according to the the general use (as attested in DTS
                38, 42, 46 and 59).

                The Lord of the Rings is supposedly a translation from a book written
                at the period of the tale (of a little later). Based on the fact that
                the Quenya transcriptions of the Lord of the Ring write always _s_ and
                never _th_, we may assume that this was done as well in the general
                use orthography of Quenya. So this supports the above evidence.

                Therefore, someone who'd learn Quenya at the period of the tale would
                only know it in a written form that doesn't distinguish _s_ from _th_.
                So if he'd write something in the unusual classical mode, he'd be very
                prone to write silme instead of thúle.

                So I think that DTS 19/20 is a very plausible sample of what a man of
                Gondor could have written.

                The s-spellings in DTS 19/20 differ systematically from the claims on
                the s-spelling in app. E. Vicente S. Velasco has not tried to explain
                this (he's not even pointed it out), but just stated that it's
                "clearly an error or at least a lapse".


                > > the reconstructions of historical pronunciations that were
                > > made based on the spellings of the words "ve" and "enquantuva"
                > > are pointless.
                >
                > Well. In published sources at least, Tolkien doesn't explicitly
                > say that V representing earlier W was still written as Vilya
                > rather than Vala (the way he insists that the historical
                > spelling persisted in the case of S from earlier TH). Also, in
                > some positions W may have become V so early that it had already
                > happened by the time the Tengwar spelling was established.

                Vicente has shown very carefully that DTS 19/20 is not written
                according to Quenya diachrony. Nonetheless, in order to make
                assertions about Quenya diachrony, he pretends it were.


                And there's something I didn't notice in the first post: The first
                note sounds as if in DTS 48, the letters for _n_ and _r_ were
                confused. This isn't true. The only feature the mode of DTS 48 shares
                with the mode of Beleriand is the vowels, whereas its consonants are
                as in the general use. So maybe Vicente S. Velasco neglected the
                systematical differences between DTS 19/20 and app. E because he
                wasn't aware of the great variation in Tolkien's tengwar use.

                ---------------------------
                j. 'mach' wust
                http://machhezan.tripod.com
                ---------------------------
              • Gildor Inglorion
                life would be a bit easier if instead of DTS xxx we were using some abbreviations, like King s Letter and Namarie I think it would be easier both to write
                Message 7 of 7 , Jan 4, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  life would be a bit easier if instead of DTS xxx we
                  were using some abbreviations, like 'King's Letter'
                  and 'Namarie'

                  I think it would be easier both to write and read :)

                  ____________________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Αποκτήστε τη δωρεάν @... διεύθυνση σας στο http://www.otenet.gr
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.