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.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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
> > > 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  or to [Q])? I don't call these "distorsions", but "natural"
> > > 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
> > 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