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

transcription of the poem Errantry

Expand Messages
  • j_mach_wust
    Hi I ve uploaded a transcription of the poem Errantry that tries to stick as close as possible to Tolkien s phonemic tehtar mode samples (DTS 39 - Doodled
    Message 1 of 15 , Mar 23, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi

      I've uploaded a transcription of the poem Errantry that tries to stick
      as close as possible to Tolkien's phonemic tehtar mode samples (DTS 39
      - Doodled Headlines, DTS 41 - Envelope Doodles, and DTS 58 - The
      Howlett Rivendell Inscriptions). That poem seems to be a good test
      case for an English mode since it contains many difficult words
      (actually most English texts do) and because Tolkien himself has
      transcribed its beginning (DTS 16 - Elvish Script Sample I).

      http://tengwar.xardas.lima-city.de/verschidnigs/some_tengwar_images/erntri.pdf

      There's also an rtf-version (which requires the new version of tengwar
      annatar to be installed):

      http://tengwar.xardas.lima-city.de/verschidnigs/some_tengwar_images/erntri.rtf

      My main difficulty has been about the schwa sounds (the weak sounds as
      at the beginning and at the end of the word _America_; in this mail, I
      transcribe it with _@_: /@merik@/).

      The schwa is attested with a dot below in the world /nash@n@list/ (DTS
      39). However, the tehtar are carried by the preceding tengwar in this
      word (so it is actually written _na-sh@-n@-li-st_), which is contrary
      to what Tolkien says about tengwar-tehtar order in app. E. Since the
      phonemic tehtar mode samples show both writings, I have chosen to
      place the tehtar on the following tengwar based on app. E.

      Now the problem is, if we try to write this same word with the tehtar
      on the following tengwar, then it looks weird: _n-ash-@n-@l-is-t_. If
      you read that, you get a beginning that rhymes with _passion_ and then
      fail to read the rest because you got the beginning wrong: The word is
      not _nassion-list_ but _na-tio-na-list_. It's even more evident in a
      word such as _gondola_: If this is written _g-ond-@l-@_, then you'll
      read _gondle-uh_ and not _gondola_, and it also looks very strange to
      place a dot below a short carrier.

      My solution for this problem has been to represent the schwa with a
      grave accent as the one seen in the word _cladiolus_ (DTS 41; probably
      a misspelling of _gladiolus_). I still use the dot below for words
      such as _lable_ (l-ey-b-.l), _rhythm_ (r-idh-.m), _errantry_
      (er-.nt-r-i) (which is its only use in the phonemic full writing
      modes), as in DTS 39 (in the word _Britain_: _b-r-it-.n), but contrary
      to DTS 58 (where _Rivendell_ is transcribed as _r-iv-nd-el,
      ri-v-nde-l_ without any dot).

      For initial schwa (as in _again_ /@gen/), however, I've used the
      carrier that is connected to the next tengwa by a kind of quesse-bar.
      Maybe this is not a good solution.

      Another problem is that we have no attested tehta for the vowel of
      _nut_. I've used the grave accent as well. The use of the same sign
      for schwa and for the vowel of _nut_ is attested in phonemic English
      sarati texts (though the phonemic full writing tengwar modes use
      different signs).

      I hope for comments on these or on other points.

      ---------------------------
      j. 'mach' wust
      http://machhezan.tripod.com
      ---------------------------
    • Dave
      j. mach wust scripsit: The schwa is attested with a dot below in the world /nash@n@list/ (DTS 39). However, the tehtar are carried by the preceding tengwar
      Message 2 of 15 , Mar 23, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        j. 'mach' wust scripsit:

        The schwa is attested with a dot below in the world /nash@n@list/ (DTS
        39). However, the tehtar are carried by the preceding tengwar in this
        word (so it is actually written _na-sh@-n@-li-st_), which is contrary
        to what Tolkien says about tengwar-tehtar order in app. E.


        <<Right, but one can hardly argue with the grand master if he decides to spell otherwise, as in DTS 39 ;).>>


        Since the phonemic tehtar mode samples show both writings, I have chosen to
        place the tehtar on the following tengwar based on app. E.

        Now the problem is, if we try to write this same word with the tehtar
        on the following tengwar, then it looks weird: _n-ash-@n-@l-is-t_. If
        you read that, you get a beginning that rhymes with _passion_ and then
        fail to read the rest because you got the beginning wrong: The word is
        not _nassion-list_ but _na-tio-na-list_. It's even more evident in a
        word such as _gondola_: If this is written _g-ond-@l-@_, then you'll
        read _gondle-uh_ and not _gondola_, and it also looks very strange to
        place a dot below a short carrier.


        <<First of all, I assume you treat under-dots (meant to represent schwas) just like other tehtar, so if (as usually the case in English) the tehtar are placed on the following tengwar, the schwa would have to be put _under_ the _following_ tengwar. I can't say this is wrong, of course, though it somehow doesn't _feel_ right: normally in English tengwar-tehtar modes the "reading direction" is from top to bottom, but putting the "schwa-dot" _under_ the following consonant would reverse this.

        Personally I would prefer a solution where one could possibly still use the under-dot for schwas, but would treat them like the underdots representing silent "e" in the Mazarbul mode etc. (which are of course not tehtar modes), i.e. one would always put them under the preceding consonant, whether one puts the "other" tehtar on the following or the preceding consonant.

        Since we have no example for a tehtar phonemic mode that features _both_ tehtar put on the following tengwar and under-dots for schwahs, we should at least consider this possibility (at least until there's evidence to the contrary) as something the professor might have deemed valid.

        (As is clear from your own statements above and below, we do not have any Tolkien-made examples to guide us on this specific issue, since in the DTS 39, the tehtar and the "schwa-under-dots" are all consistently put on the preceding consonants, and in the Rivendell inscriptions, the schwas aren't indicated at all [also a possible "solution", albeit probably not very satisfactory].)

        My general impression is that under-dots, no matter if they represent syllabic consonants, mute following "e" or schwas, tend to be treated differently from the other tehtar. The under-dot for silent "e", for example, is always put under the preceding consonant, even where the tehtar are put on the following consonant (as in the LotR title page inscription or the Brogan Tengwar greetings--which represent, of course, orthographic spellings).
        (Naturally you could argue that in the case of dots for syllabic consonants/following mute "e", these are _de facto_ not tehtar, as strictly speaking they do not represent vowels, but either consonants that [like usually only vowels] create a syllable on their own, or vowels that exist in traditional orthography but are not pronounced. I seem to recall that you consider these two kinds of under-dots as very distinct from the tehtar, rather as modifiers of the preceding sounds.)

        BTW, I don't quite follow your argument about the word "nationalist": I would have no problem reading it even if the tehtar (incl. the schwah-under-dots) are put on the following tengwar (/n-ash-@n-@l-is-t/). If one knows English, and knows the relevant rules (tehtar/schwah-dots placed on following consonant) it should still be evident what is meant here. The same for gondola. But maybe others feel different?

        As I have made clear above, I might also be fine with /n-ash@-n@-l-is-t/, i.e. schwa-dots under preceding, other tehtar on following tengwar.

        Having said all that, I think your proposed spelling with a grave accent is very elegant--as the entire transcription is aesthetically very pleasing, thanks a lot!

        About _cladiolus_, though: isn't it _cladioulus_, or how is one to interpret the O-tehta on uure (if not as "o" + "w/u", read from top to bottom since this is a diphthong)?
        Also, in this example it seems that the tehtar (incl. the grave accent, that in my reproduction [AI] seems to be on the lambe rather than the silme nuquerna) are also placed on the preceding tengwar (as in DTS 39), not on the following (which is the practice you use in your "Errantry" transcription).
        And, since I'm at it, what about that funny-looking stroke on top of formen in the next word, _fatarum_? Any explanation for that?>>

        Greetings,

        Hísilómë



        My solution for this problem has been to represent the schwa with a
        grave accent as the one seen in the word _cladiolus_ (DTS 41; probably
        a misspelling of _gladiolus_). I still use the dot below for words
        such as _lable_ (l-ey-b-.l), _rhythm_ (r-idh-.m), _errantry_
        (er-.nt-r-i) (which is its only use in the phonemic full writing
        modes), as in DTS 39 (in the word _Britain_: _b-r-it-.n), but contrary
        to DTS 58 (where _Rivendell_ is transcribed as _r-iv-nd-el,
        ri-v-nde-l_ without any dot).

        For initial schwa (as in _again_ /@gen/), however, I've used the
        carrier that is connected to the next tengwa by a kind of quesse-bar.
        Maybe this is not a good solution.

        Another problem is that we have no attested tehta for the vowel of
        _nut_. I've used the grave accent as well. The use of the same sign
        for schwa and for the vowel of _nut_ is attested in phonemic English
        sarati texts (though the phonemic full writing tengwar modes use
        different signs).

        I hope for comments on these or on other points.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • j_mach_wust
        ... It s not about arguing with the grand master, but rather about deciding which one of his examples to follow, since DTS 39 and 58 provide us with both
        Message 3 of 15 , Mar 24, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Dave wrote:
          >
          > j. 'mach' wust scripsit:
          >
          > > The schwa is attested with a dot below in the world /nash@n@list/
          > > (DTS 39). However, the tehtar are carried by the preceding
          > > tengwar in this word (so it is actually written
          > > _na-sh@-n@-li-st_), which is contrary to what Tolkien says about
          > > tengwar-tehtar order in app. E.
          >
          > <<Right, but one can hardly argue with the grand master if he
          > decides to spell otherwise, as in DTS 39 ;).>>

          It's not about arguing with the grand master, but rather about
          deciding which one of his examples to follow, since DTS 39 and 58
          provide us with both tehtar-tengwar orders. As both are equally
          attested, I give the last word to the master's theory provided in the
          appendices.


          > <<First of all, I assume you treat under-dots (meant to represent
          > schwas) just like other tehtar, so if (as usually the case in
          > English) the tehtar are placed on the following tengwar, the schwa
          > would have to be put _under_ the _following_ tengwar. I can't say
          > this is wrong, of course, though it somehow doesn't _feel_ right:
          > normally in English tengwar-tehtar modes the "reading direction" is
          > from top to bottom, but putting the "schwa-dot" _under_ the
          > following consonant would reverse this.

          I think what is written about reading direction is secondary. The word
          _na-sh@-n@-li-s-t_ in DTS 39 is a pretty unequivocal example that the
          reading direction doesn't matter, but only whether the tehtar are
          placed on the following or the preceding tengwa. This is further
          examplified for the other tengwar-tehtar order by the word _b-r-it-@n_
          in the same specimen, though in this word we can argue that the dot
          below is not meant to be a schwa, but only an indication of the
          syllabicity of the consonant _n_ (the pronunciation being _bri-tn_
          without any vowel in the second syllable). However, this still makes
          it impossible for the name _Edna_ to be written as _ed-n@_ (according
          to the reading direction top-down) since this would be misread as if
          the word were _edden_.

          It's not like this in all the modes, the main contrary example being
          the old English mode of DTS 50 where we really observe the reading
          direction top-down. As you've said, the dot below in the orthographic
          modes doesn't need to be a sample of the reading direction top-down,
          since we may consider it not to be a vowel tehta, but a mere modifier
          (and modifiers don't care for tengwar-tehtar order as can be seen in
          the instances of the nasal bar).

          ***

          On a second thought: In a mode where the vowel tehtar placed on the
          preceding tengwar, we have an unambiguous evidence for the schwa-dot
          to be placed the same way, at the preceding tengwa (in _nationalist_).
          In a mode where the vowel tehtar are placed on the following tehtar,
          we have no unambiguous evidence for the schwa-dot in any modern
          English mode, since the word _Britain_ in DTS 39 can be considered to
          have a syllabicity-dot, not a schwa-dot. However, there's the evidence
          of DTS 50 that shows the reading direction top-down.

          Now this use of the schwa-dot is incompatible with the
          syllabicity-dot. DTS 58 doesn't employ the syllabicity-dot in the name
          _Rivendell_, so we may choose not to mark syllabicity at all and to
          use only the schwa-dot placed under the preceding tengwar, after the
          model of DTS 50, and accepting that _Edna_ may be misread as _edden_.

          This is an elegant solution because it allows the use of the dot for
          _weak, obscured vowels_ as described in app. E, and because it doesn't
          require the grave accent to be used which is attested only once in the
          publicated material. The disadvantage is that this mode doesn't match
          any of the samples in DTS 39 and 41, but only one word in DTS 58...
          but it matches best app. E...

          Remains the problem of initial schwa. There's no attested sample of a
          carrier with a tehta below. I'd choose the "connected" carrier, the
          same as in the Bombadil-modes (DTS 16, 17, 18, 23).

          I think I'll rewrite Errantry...


          > BTW, I don't quite follow your argument about the word
          > "nationalist": I would have no problem reading it even if the
          > tehtar (incl. the schwah-under-dots) are put on the following
          > tengwar (/n-ash-@n-@l-is-t/). If one knows English, and knows the
          > relevant rules (tehtar/schwah-dots placed on following consonant)
          > it should still be evident what is meant here. The same for
          > gondola. But maybe others feel different?

          My problem was about the distinction of schwa and the indication of
          syllabicity of a consonant. If there is _g-ond-.l-.[carrier]_, then I
          read the first dot not as a schwa, but as an indication that the _l_
          is syllabic, as it is in many words such as in _tickle, dangle,
          little_ etc. However, it really should be read as a schwa. In the
          phonemic full writing mode, the word _gond@l@_ has schwa letters, and
          not dots below which are alway used to mark syllabicity.

          So I think the dot below should either represent the syllabicity or
          the schwa. If it represents syllabicity, then the schwa can be
          represented by the grave accent; if it represents schwa, then the
          syllabicity can remain unmarked.

          If the dot is used for schwa and syllabicity is not marked, then the
          word _nation_ would have no dot: _n-ey-sh-n_. The word _national_,
          however, would require two dots: _n-ash-.n-.l_ with the dots placed
          like the other tehtar or _n-ash.-n.-l_ with the dots placed as in DTS 50.


          > About _cladiolus_, though: isn't it _cladioulus_, or how is one to
          > interpret the O-tehta on uure (if not as "o" + "w/u", read from top
          > to bottom since this is a diphthong)?

          You're right, I just gave a rather orthographic transcription (the
          plant spells _gladiolus_).

          > Also, in this example it
          > seems that the tehtar (incl. the grave accent, that in my
          > reproduction [AI] seems to be on the lambe rather than the silme
          > nuquerna) are also placed on the preceding tengwar (as in DTS 39),
          > not on the following (which is the practice you use in your
          > "Errantry" transcription).

          Exactly. The use of úre is also a very good evidence for this.

          > And, since I'm at it, what about that
          > funny-looking stroke on top of formen in the next word, _fatarum_?
          > Any explanation for that?>>

          I've never wondered yet! I've been comfortable with my immediate
          intuition that it is either a slip or an accidental adornation. The
          dot within quesse in the word _incursu_ is also interesting.

          ---------------------------
          j. 'mach' wust
          http://machhezan.tripod.com
          ---------------------------
        • Dave
          ... It s not about arguing with the grand master, but rather about deciding which one of his examples to follow, since DTS 39 and 58 provide us with both
          Message 4 of 15 , Mar 24, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            > j. 'mach' wust scripsit:
            >
            > <<Right, but one can hardly argue with the grand master if he
            > decides to spell otherwise, as in DTS 39 ;).>>

            It's not about arguing with the grand master, but rather about
            deciding which one of his examples to follow, since DTS 39 and 58
            provide us with both tehtar-tengwar orders. As both are equally
            attested, I give the last word to the master's theory provided in the
            appendices.

            <<Well, I was kind of half joking there...I'm all for giving the LotR Appendices their due weight...not like some who seem to think they weren't much more than a rather over-simplistic version of the professor's ideas and explanations for those without much linguistic training (like me :).>>


            I think what is written about reading direction is secondary.


            <<Actually, I was only voicing my own, very subjective, feelings on the issue here, not referring to any secondary sources. I am also aware that Tolkien himself did experiment with different styles and had no overly rigid rules on this (see DTS 58, or DTS 38/54:2, Quenya with tehtar on following tengwar), only general guidelines, such as: Quenya texts _usually_ place tehtar on the preceding tengwar etc.>>



            The word _na-sh@-n@-li-s-t_ in DTS 39 is a pretty unequivocal example that the
            reading direction doesn't matter, but only whether the tehtar are
            placed on the following or the preceding tengwa. ... However, this still makes
            it impossible for the name _Edna_ to be written as _ed-n@_ (according
            to the reading direction top-down) since this would be misread as if
            the word were _edden_.

            It's not like this in all the modes, the main contrary example being
            the old English mode of DTS 50 where we really observe the reading
            direction top-down. As you've said, the dot below in the orthographic
            modes doesn't need to be a sample of the reading direction top-down,
            since we may consider it not to be a vowel tehta, but a mere modifier
            (and modifiers don't care for tengwar-tehtar order as can be seen in
            the instances of the nasal bar).

            ***

            On a second thought: In a mode where the vowel tehtar placed on the
            preceding tengwar, we have an unambiguous evidence for the schwa-dot
            to be placed the same way, at the preceding tengwa (in _nationalist_).
            In a mode where the vowel tehtar are placed on the following tehtar,
            we have no unambiguous evidence for the schwa-dot in any modern
            English mode, since the word _Britain_ in DTS 39 can be considered to
            have a syllabicity-dot, not a schwa-dot. However, there's the evidence
            of DTS 50 that shows the reading direction top-down.

            Now this use of the schwa-dot is incompatible with the
            syllabicity-dot. DTS 58 doesn't employ the syllabicity-dot in the name
            _Rivendell_, so we may choose not to mark syllabicity at all and to
            use only the schwa-dot placed under the preceding tengwar, after the
            model of DTS 50, and accepting that _Edna_ may be misread as _edden_.


            <<Yes, this sounds good to me, too. In most cases, there wouldn't really be any ambiguity (as there's none here: no English word "edden" AFAIK, except maybe as a name), particularly once you've figured the system out.
            The grave accent doesn't look all bad, either, though. Aesthetically, both are attractive I think, so it's really a matter of choice and consistency within a given text.>>


            This is an elegant solution because it allows the use of the dot for
            _weak, obscured vowels_ as described in app. E, and because it doesn't
            require the grave accent to be used which is attested only once in the
            publicated material.

            ...
            I think I'll rewrite Errantry...


            So I think the dot below should either represent the syllabicity or
            the schwa. If it represents syllabicity, then the schwa can be
            represented by the grave accent; if it represents schwa, then the
            syllabicity can remain unmarked.

            If the dot is used for schwa and syllabicity is not marked, then the
            word _nation_ would have no dot: _n-ey-sh-n_. The word _national_,
            however, would require two dots: _n-ash-.n-.l_ with the dots placed
            like the other tehtar or _n-ash.-n.-l_ with the dots placed as in DTS 50.


            <<Right, the latter spelling the same in principle as I also suggested as a possibility for "nationalist" in my mail, with schwa-dots under preceding, other tehtar on following tengwar. I had not been aware that DTS 50 actually corroborated this choice, though :). I really should have a closer look at DTS 50/51, it's just that my knowledge of Old English (Anglo-Saxon) phonology is rather superficial, which complicates matters...
            I noticed on thing, though: while DTS 50 has the tehtar on the following tengwar and the dots under the preceding (strictly top to bottom as you point out), DTS 51 seems to put the tehtar on the _preceding_ tengwar, but _still_ places the under-dots (and various other signs I haven't really checked out yet) also under the preceding tengwar (as in DTS 39)...indeed, Tolkien tried out pretty much every possibility it seems, even within the only two tengwar samples for Old English we have.

            I agree, of course, that ideally one wouldn't use the under-dots for both schwas and syllabicity (and certainly not for these two plus mute "e" on top of it).>>


            > Also, in this example ["cladioulus"] it
            > seems that the tehtar (incl. the grave accent, that in my
            > reproduction [AI] seems to be on the lambe rather than the silme
            > nuquerna) are also placed on the preceding tengwar (as in DTS 39),
            > not on the following (which is the practice you use in your
            > "Errantry" transcription).

            Exactly. The use of úre is also a very good evidence for this.

            <<For what? That the tehtar go on the preceding tengwar here? If so, how is the use of uure evidence for it (not that further evidence is needed)? I mean, diphthongs/vowel combinations are usually spelt from top to bottom (both in Quenya and the Mode of Gondor which otherwise have different "reading directions", and in English tehtar modes), except in the Sindarin Mode of Beleriand (a full mode), aren't they, so of course _(i)ou_ would be spelt with uure.

            On this note: previously you wrote in a reply to my (ceaselss :)) questions that "if a syllable has several vowels, e.g. in diphthongs, then only the most prominent of them is represented with a vowel sign (with a tehta in tehtar modes; with a tengwa in full writing), whereas secondary vowels tend to be represented with other signs (with a tengwa in tehtar modes; with a tehta in full writing)." You also said (to another of my nagging requests...argh) that Sindarin and Quenya diphtongs were originally all "falling", which matches well with the way they are spelled in the Quenya mode, (Sindarin) Mode of Gondor and the (Sindarin) Mode of Beleriand. But for "iu" you say that this diphthong (only occuring in Quenya) had become a "rising" one by the Third Age. Strictly speaking, it should then no longer be spelled with I-tehta on top of uure, is that right? And what spelling would one substitute (if one didn't want to stick to the "traditional" orthography?) Yanta with U-tehta on top (since "u" is now the prominent vowel), read from top to bottom unlike the other five diphthongs? Doesn't sound right somehow.>>

            > And, since I'm at it, what about that
            > funny-looking stroke on top of formen in the next word, _fatarum_?
            > Any explanation for that?>>

            I've never wondered yet! I've been comfortable with my immediate
            intuition that it is either a slip or an accidental adornation. The
            dot within quesse in the word _incursu_ is also interesting.

            <<Well, that dot really looks rather like an ink stain to me. With the stroke on top of formen I'm not so sure, though--looks to "deliberate" somehow, but maybe it's just decorative as you suggest.
            Interesting also the second word after _incursu_: what is the E-tehta on top of yanta meant to signify exactly?

            So, you'll really rewrite the whole thing? :)>>

            Hísilómë



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • j_mach_wust
            ... And a third thought reveals that it is still required, since there s no tehta for the vowel sound of _nut_ yet (unless we d take the a-tehta which cannot
            Message 5 of 15 , Mar 25, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
              >
              > > j. 'mach' wust scripsit:
              > > On a second thought: In a mode where the vowel tehtar placed on
              > > the preceding tengwar, we have an unambiguous evidence for the
              > > schwa-dot
              > > to be placed the same way, at the preceding tengwa (in
              > > _nationalist_). In a mode where the vowel tehtar are placed on
              > > the following tehtar, we have no unambiguous evidence for the
              > > schwa-dot in any modern English mode, since the word _Britain_ in
              > > DTS 39 can be considered to have a syllabicity-dot, not a
              > > schwa-dot. However, there's the evidence of DTS 50 that shows the
              > > reading direction top-down.
              > >
              > > Now this use of the schwa-dot is incompatible with the
              > > syllabicity-dot. DTS 58 doesn't employ the syllabicity-dot in the
              > > name _Rivendell_, so we may choose not to mark syllabicity at all
              > > and to use only the schwa-dot placed under the preceding tengwar,
              > > after the model of DTS 50, and accepting that _Edna_ may be
              > > misread as _edden_.
              >
              >
              > <<Yes, this sounds good to me, too. In most cases, there wouldn't
              > really be any ambiguity (as there's none here: no English word
              > "edden" AFAIK, except maybe as a name), particularly once you've
              > figured the system out.
              > The grave accent doesn't look all bad, either, though.
              > Aesthetically, both are attractive I think, so it's really a matter
              > of choice and consistency within a given text.>>

              And a third thought reveals that it is still required, since there's
              no tehta for the vowel sound of _nut_ yet (unless we'd take the
              a-tehta which cannot ever occur isolated on a consonant, but this
              would be contrary to any English intuition, I fear).

              So the argument that we could do without the grave accent disappears.
              And there's yet another argument against "reading top-down and not
              marking syllabicity": In DTS 47 - The d'Ardenne Dedication - we see
              the stressed r-sound of the second syllable of _return_ represented
              with óre + dot above. Now this dot obviously cannot be a schwa-dot,
              but must rather be considered a kinda syllabicity-dot that indicates
              the syllabic _r_ to be stressed.


              > I really should have a closer look at DTS 50/51, it's just that my
              > knowledge of Old English (Anglo-Saxon) phonology is rather
              > superficial, which complicates matters...

              So was mine until I had a look at them which was worth it, since -as
              you've noted- they are very instructive with respect to different
              tengwar-tehtar orders. It's also interesting that in DTS 50, vowels of
              some unstressed affixes tend to be represented not by tehtar, but by
              tengwar.


              > So, you'll really rewrite the whole thing? :)>>

              No big deal when you can use qwerty (more or less); I'm experimenting
              with a tengwar keyboard-layout for Mac OSX.

              ---------------------------
              j. 'mach' wust
              http://machhezan.tripod.com
              ---------------------------
            • j_mach_wust
              ... The thing is, úre is only used as an inverter of the normal reading direction. In modes where all vowel tehtar are placed on the following tengwar, vala
              Message 6 of 15 , Mar 25, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Dave and me wrote alternately:

                > > > Also, in this example ["cladioulus"] it
                > > > seems that the tehtar (incl. the grave accent, that in my
                > > > reproduction [AI] seems to be on the lambe rather than the silme
                > > > nuquerna) are also placed on the preceding tengwar (as in DTS
                > > > 39), not on the following (which is the practice you use in your
                > > > "Errantry" transcription).
                > >
                > > Exactly. The use of úre is also a very good evidence for this.
                >
                > <<For what? That the tehtar go on the preceding tengwar here? If
                > so, how is the use of uure evidence for it (not that further
                > evidence is needed)? I mean, diphthongs/vowel combinations are
                > usually spelt from top to bottom (both in Quenya and the Mode of
                > Gondor which otherwise have different "reading directions", and in
                > English tehtar modes), except in the Sindarin Mode of Beleriand (a
                > full mode), aren't they, so of course _(i)ou_ would be spelt with
                > uure.

                The thing is, úre is only used as an inverter of the normal reading
                direction. In modes where all vowel tehtar are placed on the following
                tengwar, vala is used instead. The same is true for yanta and anna
                (with the notable exception of the Sindarin tehtar mode).

                Therefore, the occurrence of an úre diphthong is a good evidence that
                the tehtar are placed on the preceding tengwar.

                > Interesting also the second word after _incursu_: what is the
                > E-tehta on top of yanta meant to signify exactly?

                It's _deimonio_, with yanta used as an inverter of the reading direction.


                > You also said (to another of my nagging requests...argh) that
                > Sindarin and Quenya diphtongs were originally all "falling", which
                > matches well with the way they are spelled in the Quenya mode,
                > (Sindarin) Mode of Gondor and the (Sindarin) Mode of Beleriand. But
                > for "iu" you say that this diphthong (only occuring in Quenya) had
                > become a "rising" one by the Third Age. Strictly speaking, it should
                > then no longer be spelled with I-tehta on top of uure, is that
                > right?

                What is "strictly speaking"? As a writer of English you should be
                aware that spelling doesn't adapt to each change in pronunciation! :)


                > And what spelling would one substitute (if one didn't want to
                > stick to the "traditional" orthography?) Yanta with U-tehta on top
                > (since "u" is now the prominent vowel), read from top to bottom
                > unlike the other five diphthongs? Doesn't sound right somehow.>>

                Yanta + u-tehta is _ui_. Rather two dots below the preceding tengwa
                (or below anna used as a carrier) and then a u-tehta. However, ty + u
                is probably pronounced differently from t + iu. In this case, I can't
                think of a better representation than the classical one (úre + i-tehta).

                ---------------------------
                j. 'mach' wust
                http://machhezan.tripod.com
                ---------------------------
              • Dave
                ... And a third thought reveals that it is still required, since there s no tehta for the vowel sound of _nut_ yet (unless we d take the a-tehta which cannot
                Message 7 of 15 , Mar 25, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  > > j. 'mach' wust scripsit:

                  And a third thought reveals that it is still required, since there's
                  no tehta for the vowel sound of _nut_ yet (unless we'd take the
                  a-tehta which cannot ever occur isolated on a consonant, but this
                  would be contrary to any English intuition, I fear).

                  <<I don't think these two issues are necessarily connected.
                  I think it would be ok (if one does not wish to use the grave accent) to mark the schwas with under-dots under the following tengwar and leave syllabicity unmarked (the latter as in the Rivendell Inscriptions).
                  As for the vowel in _nut_, I don't see why the a-tehta wouldn't work (or what you mean by "can never occur isolated on a consonant" or "contrary to English intuition").>>


                  So the argument that we could do without the grave accent disappears.
                  And there's yet another argument against "reading top-down and not
                  marking syllabicity": In DTS 47 - The d'Ardenne Dedication - we see
                  the stressed r-sound of the second syllable of _return_ represented
                  with óre + dot above. Now this dot obviously cannot be a schwa-dot,
                  but must rather be considered a kinda syllabicity-dot that indicates
                  the syllabic _r_ to be stressed.

                  <<I fail to see why it can't be a schwa-dot. Surely we're not dealing with a syllabic "r" here.
                  Also, isn't it an under-dot? I don't have VT 23, so I have to rely on Chris McKay's ISS instead (which does seem to have quite a few transcription errors).>>

                  Greetings,

                  Hísilómë








                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • hisilome
                  ...
                  Message 8 of 15 , Mar 25, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >
                    >j. 'mach' wust wrote:
                    >
                    >The thing is, úre is only used as an inverter of the normal reading
                    >direction. In modes where all vowel tehtar are placed on the
                    >following tengwar, vala is used instead. The same is true for yanta
                    >and anna (with the notable exception of the Sindarin tehtar mode).
                    >Therefore, the occurrence of an úre diphthong is a good evidence
                    >that the tehtar are placed on the preceding tengwar.

                    <<Got you, thanks! Those darn diphthongs :).
                    But where is anna used as "inverter of the normal reading direction"
                    except in the Mode of Gondor (Sindarin tehtar mode) which doesn't
                    count since, as you point out, here the reading direction is _not_
                    reversed (though anna is indeed used to represent "i")? The use of
                    anna for "i" as second element in vowel combinations in English modes
                    is speculative, as far as I remember.>>

                    > > Interesting also the second word after _incursu_: what is the
                    > > E-tehta on top of yanta meant to signify exactly?
                    >
                    >It's _deimonio_, with yanta used as an inverter of the reading
                    >direction.

                    <<OK, I can see that now :).
                    Also, I think the "ink stain" (though it still looks like one to me)
                    in _incursu_ might be the indicator of the preceding nasal (??). The
                    over-bar/tilde one would expect here is certainly missing.

                    >
                    >>...this diphthong iu (only occuring in Quenya) had
                    >>become a "rising" one by the Third Age. Strictly speaking, it
                    >>should then no longer be spelled with I-tehta on top of uure, right?
                    >
                    >What is "strictly speaking"? As a writer of English you should be
                    >aware that spelling doesn't adapt to each change in
                    >pronunciation! :)

                    <<Of course that's true! I was just under the impression that the
                    Elves were more sensitive to such matters... :).>>

                    Hisilome
                  • j_mach_wust
                    ... No, it s attested both in a traditional ortography mode (in the word _lay_ in DTS 37 - The Two Towers Jacket [draft C]) and in a phonemic mode (in the word
                    Message 9 of 15 , Mar 26, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "hisilome" <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
                      >
                      > >
                      > >j. 'mach' wust wrote:
                      > >
                      > >The thing is, úre is only used as an inverter of the normal reading
                      > >direction. In modes where all vowel tehtar are placed on the
                      > >following tengwar, vala is used instead. The same is true for yanta
                      > >and anna (with the notable exception of the Sindarin tehtar mode).
                      > >Therefore, the occurrence of an úre diphthong is a good evidence
                      > >that the tehtar are placed on the preceding tengwar.
                      >
                      > <<Got you, thanks! Those darn diphthongs :).
                      > But where is anna used as "inverter of the normal reading direction"
                      > except in the Mode of Gondor (Sindarin tehtar mode) which doesn't
                      > count since, as you point out, here the reading direction is _not_
                      > reversed (though anna is indeed used to represent "i")? The use of
                      > anna for "i" as second element in vowel combinations in English
                      > modes is speculative, as far as I remember.>>

                      No, it's attested both in a traditional ortography mode (in the word
                      _lay_ in DTS 37 - The Two Towers Jacket [draft C]) and in a phonemic
                      mode (in the word _preiz_ 'praise' in DTS 39 - Doodled Headlines).

                      The inverter of reading direction is vilya, not anna, and except for
                      the classical Quenya mode, it's precisely seen in DTS 41 - Envelope
                      Doodles.

                      I don't know this all by heart, but I once wrote down what I could
                      find out about the diphthongs:

                      http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/files/j_mach_wust/general_use.txt


                      > > > Interesting also the second word after _incursu_: what is the
                      > > > E-tehta on top of yanta meant to signify exactly?
                      > >
                      > >It's _deimonio_, with yanta used as an inverter of the reading
                      > >direction.
                      >
                      > <<OK, I can see that now :).
                      > Also, I think the "ink stain" (though it still looks like one to me)
                      > in _incursu_ might be the indicator of the preceding nasal (??). The
                      > over-bar/tilde one would expect here is certainly missing.

                      I'm not so certain about it: To me, it looks rather as if there were
                      two bars (the quesse bar and the nasal bar) very close to each other.
                      Together, they make a stroke that is thicker than any other in that
                      line, and at the left, it seems to me that I can see two ends.

                      ---------------------------
                      j. 'mach' wust
                      http://machhezan.tripod.com
                      ---------------------------
                    • j_mach_wust
                      ... Rather under the _preceding_ tengwar, wasn t it? ... In it s normal meaning as a representation of a it can only occur as the first part of a diphthong
                      Message 10 of 15 , Mar 26, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
                        >
                        > j. 'mach' wust scripsit:
                        >
                        > > And a third thought reveals that it is still required, since
                        > > there's no tehta for the vowel sound of _nut_ yet (unless we'd
                        > > take the a-tehta which cannot ever occur isolated on a consonant,
                        > > but this would be contrary to any English intuition, I fear).
                        >
                        > <<I don't think these two issues are necessarily connected. I think
                        > it would be ok (if one does not wish to use the grave accent) to
                        > mark the schwas with under-dots under the following tengwar

                        Rather under the _preceding_ tengwar, wasn't it?

                        > and
                        > leave syllabicity unmarked (the latter as in the Rivendell
                        > Inscriptions). As for the vowel in _nut_, I don't see why the
                        > a-tehta wouldn't work (or what you mean by "can never occur isolated
                        > on a consonant" or "contrary to English intuition").>>

                        In it's normal meaning as a representation of "a" it can only occur as
                        the first part of a diphthong (e.g. _brait_ 'bright', _daun_ 'down'),
                        as a long vowel sound (e.g. Received Pronunciation _fa:st_ 'fast'),
                        and before óre (e.g. _startle_). These are exactly the environments
                        where the vowel sound of _nut_ cannot ever occur (unless you analyze
                        the word _fur_ as containing the sound of _nut_, see below).
                        Therefore, the sound of _nut_ would perfectly fit into this gap.

                        The reason why I said that this would be contrary to English intuition
                        is that most would rather fill this gap with the vowel of _bat_. There
                        are phonemic English writing systems by Tolkien where this is actually
                        the case, e.g. DTS 24 - The Treebeard Page. There are Tolkien modes
                        where the vowel of _bat_ is represented in another way (e.g. DTS 16,
                        17, 18, 23, where it's represented with a-tengwa + dot above and the
                        tehtar modes we're talking about where it's represented with the
                        reversed a-tehta), but still, none of these systems uses this gap to
                        represent the vowel of _nut_ (DTS 16, 17, 18, 23 use another vowel
                        sign; in the tehtar modes there's unfortunately no occurence of the
                        vowel of _nut_).


                        > > And there's yet another argument against "reading
                        > > top-down and not marking syllabicity": In DTS 47 - The d'Ardenne
                        > > Dedication - we see the stressed r-sound of the second syllable of
                        > > _return_ represented with óre + dot above. Now this dot obviously
                        > > cannot be a schwa-dot, but must rather be considered a kinda
                        > > syllabicity-dot that indicates the syllabic _r_ to be stressed.
                        >
                        > <<I fail to see why it can't be a schwa-dot. Surely we're not
                        > dealing with a syllabic "r" here. Also, isn't it an under-dot? I
                        > don't have VT 23, so I have to rely on Chris McKay's ISS instead
                        > (which does seem to have quite a few transcription errors).>>

                        I'm sorry, it was my error: Of course it is a dot below!

                        Now we were talking about an English tehtar mode where the vowel
                        tehtar are placed above the following tengwa except for the schwa-dot
                        which is placed below the preceding tengwa ("reading top-down and not
                        marking syllabicity"). If we try to read the word _return_ as written
                        in DTS 47 according to that mode, then we'll get something wrong, that
                        is, we'll read _ritR@n_: first óre, and then a schwa. So the spelling
                        of DTS 47 can't be explained with "reading top-down and not marking
                        syllabicity". We only get a correct reading if we either consider the
                        dot below to be a preceding schwa or to be a syllabicity marker.

                        ---------------------------
                        j. 'mach' wust
                        http://machhezan.tripod.com
                        ---------------------------
                      • Dave
                        ... No, it s attested both in a traditional ortography mode (in the word _lay_ in DTS 37 - The Two Towers Jacket [draft C]) and in a phonemic mode (in the word
                        Message 11 of 15 , Mar 26, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > >j. 'mach' wust wrote:
                          > >
                          > Where is anna used as "inverter of the normal reading direction"
                          > except in the Mode of Gondor (Sindarin tehtar mode) which doesn't
                          > count since, as you point out, here the reading direction is _not_
                          > reversed (though anna is indeed used to represent "i")? The use of
                          > anna for "i" as second element in vowel combinations in English
                          > modes is speculative, as far as I remember.>>

                          No, it's attested both in a traditional ortography mode (in the word
                          _lay_ in DTS 37 - The Two Towers Jacket [draft C]) and in a phonemic
                          mode (in the word _preiz_ 'praise' in DTS 39 - Doodled Headlines).

                          <<Got me there! :)>>

                          The inverter of reading direction is vilya, not anna, and except for
                          the classical Quenya mode, it's precisely seen in DTS 41 - Envelope
                          Doodles.

                          <<I beg your pardon, but where is there even a single vilya (any kind) in DTS 41?

                          And where exactly does the classical Quenya mode use vilya as "inverter"? I thought in the classical Quenya mode the diphthongs were:

                          ai = a-tehta atop yanta
                          au = a-tehta atop uure
                          eu = e-tehta atop uure
                          iu = i-tehta atop uure
                          oi = o-tehta atop yanta
                          ui = u-tehta atop yanta,

                          with the exceptions seen in Namaarie (spelling of _nainie_ and _caita_ where the a-tehta is on the preceding consonant and the yanta stands "alone").
                          I believe vilya in the classical Quenya mode is just used for "v", the same as vala, with the difference that vilya represents older wilya "w".

                          The only "inverter" of any kind I see in DTS 41 is uure.

                          But as usual, I'll probably stand corrected... :)

                          Hisilome




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Dave
                          ... Rather under the _preceding_ tengwar, wasn t it?
                          Message 12 of 15 , Mar 26, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > j. 'mach' wust wrote:
                            >
                            > > And a third thought reveals that it is still required, since
                            > > there's no tehta for the vowel sound of _nut_ yet (unless we'd
                            > > take the a-tehta which cannot ever occur isolated on a consonant,
                            > > but this would be contrary to any English intuition, I fear).

                            I replied:
                            > <<I don't think these two issues are necessarily connected. I think
                            > it would be ok (if one does not wish to use the grave accent) to
                            > mark the schwas with under-dots under the following tengwar

                            Rather under the _preceding_ tengwar, wasn't it?

                            <<Why, yes, that's also still an option, if it's applied with consistency. But I was actually referring back to your favourite solution (if I understood you correctly) and original proposal (in accordance with App. E) of placing all tehtar _and_ schwa-dots on/under the _following_ tengwar.>>


                            > and
                            > leave syllabicity unmarked (the latter as in the Rivendell
                            > Inscriptions). As for the vowel in _nut_, I don't see why the
                            > a-tehta wouldn't work (or what you mean by "can never occur isolated
                            > on a consonant" or "contrary to English intuition").>>

                            In it's normal meaning as a representation of "a" it can only occur as
                            the first part of a diphthong (e.g. _brait_ 'bright', _daun_ 'down'),
                            as a long vowel sound (e.g. Received Pronunciation _fa:st_ 'fast'),
                            and before óre (e.g. _startle_). These are exactly the environments
                            where the vowel sound of _nut_ cannot ever occur (unless you analyze
                            the word _fur_ as containing the sound of _nut_, see below).
                            Therefore, the sound of _nut_ would perfectly fit into this gap.

                            <<Hmm. Think I catch your main drift, though I still don't see what you meant exactly by "isolated". ;)
                            I don't think I know anyone who'd pronounce the vowel in _nut_ like the one in _fur_...>>


                            The reason why I said that this would be contrary to English intuition
                            is that most would rather fill this gap with the vowel of _bat_. There
                            are phonemic English writing systems by Tolkien where this is actually
                            the case, e.g. DTS 24 - The Treebeard Page. There are Tolkien modes
                            where the vowel of _bat_ is represented in another way (e.g. DTS 16,
                            17, 18, 23, where it's represented with a-tengwa + dot above and the
                            tehtar modes we're talking about where it's represented with the
                            reversed a-tehta), but still, none of these systems uses this gap to
                            represent the vowel of _nut_ (DTS 16, 17, 18, 23 use another vowel
                            sign; in the tehtar modes there's unfortunately no occurence of the
                            vowel of _nut_).

                            <<Since there's no evidence in the grand master's specimens, what would you propose then?>>


                            > > And there's yet another argument against "reading
                            > > top-down and not marking syllabicity": In DTS 47 - The d'Ardenne
                            > > Dedication - we see the stressed r-sound of the second syllable of
                            > > _return_ represented with óre + dot above. Now this dot obviously
                            > > cannot be a schwa-dot, but must rather be considered a kinda
                            > > syllabicity-dot that indicates the syllabic _r_ to be stressed.
                            >
                            > <<I fail to see why it can't be a schwa-dot. Surely we're not
                            > dealing with a syllabic "r" here.>>


                            Now we were talking about an English tehtar mode where the vowel
                            tehtar are placed above the following tengwa except for the schwa-dot
                            which is placed below the preceding tengwa ("reading top-down and not
                            marking syllabicity"). If we try to read the word _return_ as written
                            in DTS 47 according to that mode, then we'll get something wrong, that
                            is, we'll read _ritR@n_: first óre, and then a schwa. So the spelling
                            of DTS 47 can't be explained with "reading top-down and not marking
                            syllabicity". We only get a correct reading if we either consider the
                            dot below to be a preceding schwa or to be a syllabicity marker.

                            <<Exactly. It has to be the schwa, because there simply is no syllabic consonant here (cf. _written_: here the "n" is syllabic, but in _return_ there's definitely a vowel sound [the very schwa in this case] between "t" and "rn"----if there wasn't, then _return_ would indeed sound very much like _written_).

                            As I said, I think it's fine to go with your original intuition to put (in a phonemic tehtar mode) the tehtar and the schwa-dots atop/under the _following_ tengwar. Syllabicity doesn't need to be marked, also because it occurs much less frequently in English than schwas do.>>

                            Hisilome




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • j_mach_wust
                            ... What am I saying? I meant yanta, not vilya. Sorry for the confusion. I should wait with posting until I m off hangover... ... Except for yanta in
                            Message 13 of 15 , Mar 26, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
                              > > >j. 'mach' wust wrote:
                              >
                              > > The inverter of reading direction is vilya, not anna, and except
                              > > for the classical Quenya mode, it's precisely seen in DTS 41 -
                              > > Envelope Doodles.
                              >
                              > <<I beg your pardon, but where is there even a single vilya (any
                              > kind) in DTS 41?

                              What am I saying? I meant yanta, not vilya. Sorry for the confusion. I
                              should wait with posting until I'm off hangover...


                              > The only "inverter" of any kind I see in DTS 41 is uure.

                              Except for yanta in _deimonio_. ;)

                              ---------------------------
                              j. 'mach' wust
                              http://machhezan.tripod.com
                              ---------------------------
                            • j_mach_wust
                              ... If by original you mean the mode I ve used for the Errantry transcription, then you got it wrong, since there I use the dot below only as a
                              Message 14 of 15 , Mar 26, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
                                >
                                > But I was actually referring back to your favourite solution (if I
                                > understood you correctly) and original proposal (in accordance with
                                > App. E) of placing all tehtar _and_ schwa-dots on/under the
                                > _following_ tengwar.>>

                                If by 'original' you mean the mode I've used for the Errantry
                                transcription, then you got it wrong, since there I use the dot below
                                only as a syllabicity-dot, maintining thus the difference between
                                syllabicity marker and schwa as observed in the phonemic full writing
                                modes. I merge the schwa with the vowel of _nut_, despite there
                                differenciation in those modes, but this is attested in certain sarati
                                modes, if I'm not wrong (it's very difficult to get access to the
                                sarati samples, that is, to PE 13).


                                > > The reason why I said that this would be contrary to English
                                > > intuition is that most would rather fill this gap with the vowel
                                > > of _bat_. There are phonemic English writing systems by Tolkien
                                > > where this is actually the case, e.g. DTS 24 - The Treebeard Page.
                                > > There are Tolkien modes where the vowel of _bat_ is represented in
                                > > another way (e.g. DTS 16, 17, 18, 23, where it's represented with
                                > > a-tengwa + dot above and the tehtar modes we're talking about
                                > > where it's represented with the reversed a-tehta), but still, none
                                > > of these systems uses this gap to represent the vowel of _nut_
                                > > (DTS 16, 17, 18, 23 use another vowel sign; in the tehtar modes
                                > > there's unfortunately no occurence of the vowel of _nut_).
                                >
                                > <<Since there's no evidence in the grand master's specimens, what
                                > would you propose then?>>

                                I prefer the grave accent which is attested for a schwa in DTS 41.


                                > > If we try to read the word _return_ as written in DTS 47 according
                                > > to that mode, then we'll get something wrong, that is, we'll read
                                > > _ritR@n_: first óre, and then a schwa. So the spelling of DTS 47
                                > > can't be explained with "reading top-down and not marking
                                > > syllabicity". We only get a correct reading if we either consider
                                > > the dot below to be a preceding schwa or to be a syllabicity
                                > > marker.
                                >
                                > <<Exactly. It has to be the schwa, because there simply is no
                                > syllabic consonant here (cf. _written_: here the "n" is syllabic,
                                > but in _return_ there's definitely a vowel sound [the very schwa in
                                > this case] between "t" and "rn"----if there wasn't, then _return_
                                > would indeed sound very much like _written_).

                                The word _turn_ may be analyzed as containing a stressed syllabic
                                r-sound (as opposed to the unstressed syllabic r-sound which is simply
                                represented by óre in words such as _better_ etc.): t + (stressed
                                syllabic r) + n. Another possibility is to analyze it as follows: t +
                                (vowel of _nut_) + r + n. Tolkien seems to prefer the previous
                                analysis, since in DTS 24 we see the word _searching_ written with óre
                                + andaith, that is, with a long syllabic r-sound.

                                ---------------------------
                                j. 'mach' wust
                                http://machhezan.tripod.com
                                ---------------------------
                              • Dave
                                ... j. mach wust replied: Except for yanta in _deimonio_. ;) Hisilome [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Message 15 of 15 , Mar 27, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I wrote:
                                  > The only "inverter" of any kind I see in DTS 41 is uure.

                                  j. 'mach' wust replied:
                                  Except for yanta in _deimonio_. ;)

                                  <<...and corrected I stand :).>>

                                  Hisilome




                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.