_i ngaurhoth_ vs. _in-gaurhoth_ [was on Elfling: Fwd: Re: [S] Class plurals]
- 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_I wrote:
>> vs. _in gaurhoth_ could simply be a change in the writing
>> conventions (neither would be how you write it in tengwar anyway).
> I don't quite get you here - so you mean that _i ngaurhoth_ and _inHe replied:
> gaurhoth_ are pronounced and (thus) written identically?
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
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 ;-)