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

_i ngaurhoth_ vs. _in-gaurhoth_ [was on Elfling: Fwd: Re: [S] Class plurals]

Expand Messages
  • calwen76
    Hello Elfscripters, here is a short discussion on Elfling that seems quite interesting to me and I would like to know your opinion (messages 31487, 31494, ...
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 13, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Elfscripters,
      here is a short discussion on Elfling that seems quite interesting to
      me and I would like to know your opinion (messages 31487, 31494,
      31496, 31497, 31500 and 31501):
      ----------------------
      Thorsten Renk wrote:
      >> I agree here, the majority of examples suggests that, _i ngaurhoth_
      >> vs. _in gaurhoth_ could simply be a change in the writing
      >> conventions (neither would be how you write it in tengwar anyway).

      I wrote:
      > I don't quite get you here - so you mean that _i ngaurhoth_ and _in
      > gaurhoth_ are pronounced and (thus) written identically?

      He replied:
      I suppose what would be written in Tengwar is _i ñaurhoth_ (soft) vs.
      _añ ñgaurhoth_ (nasal). So that is how the 'original' tengwar
      writing would presumably differ, and how I would make a difference
      in pronounciation.

      As for _i ngaurhoth_ vs. _in-gaurhoth_, it seems to me they are just
      conventions how to transcribe the tengwar orthography conveniently
      into latin characters, and yes, I think it is conceivable that
      Tolkien changed these conventions over time (I don't claim that this
      is necessarily so).
      If were so, _i ngaurhoth_ and _in-gaurhoth_ could be two versions of
      transcribing the same _i(ñ) ñgaurhoth_ - if so, I would use the sama
      pronounciation of course ;-)
      -----------------------
      Thanks!
      Lucy
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.