Re: Christmas gift: Namarie analysis
- View SourceTeithant Edouard Kloszko:
> Could that mean that Helge's "recommendations" are also FAR fromDoes this indicate that Edouard's posts are FAR from being constructive, or anyting other than flame bait? Could it be? It could!
> being recommendable ? Could it be ? It could !
Cuio mae, Danny.
- View SourceFor Christmas, I uploaded to my site an analysis of Tolkien's Tengwar
transcript of Namárie, by Vicente Velasco:
j. 'mach' wust comments:
> Thanks for uploading this commentary. Unfortunately, I must tell you thatVicente 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 tohim 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 onthe 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
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).
- View SourceOn: http://www.uib.no/people/hnohf/namteng.pdf
> > Thanks for uploading this commentary. Unfortunately, I mustHelge K. Fauskanger wrote:
> > 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 describedIn DTS 58 (The Howlett Rivendell Inscriptions), Tolkien wrote
> 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.
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
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 wereVicente has shown very carefully that DTS 19/20 is not written
> > 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.
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
- View Sourcelife would be a bit easier if instead of DTS xxx we
were using some abbreviations, like 'King's Letter'
I think it would be easier both to write and read :)
Do You Yahoo!?
Αποκτήστε τη δωρεάν @... διεύθυνση σας στο http://www.otenet.gr