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

Re: Christmas gift: Namarie analysis

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , Dec 24, 2004
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 7 , Dec 27, 2004
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 7 , Dec 27, 2004
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 7 , Jan 4, 2005
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 7 , Jan 4, 2005
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 7 , Jan 4, 2005
              View Source
              • 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.