Re: Christmas gift: Namarie analysis
- On: 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
- life 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