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

Amanye Tenceli update: The General Use

Expand Messages
  • Måns Björkman
    Fellow Sarmendili! I have today added to Amanye Tenceli a first attempt at describing the Tengwar mode known as General Use. Partly as a consequence of this,
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 14, 2005
      Fellow Sarmendili!

      I have today added to Amanye Tenceli a first attempt at describing the
      Tengwar mode known as General Use. Partly as a consequence of this,
      the overview description of the Tengwar has been extensively revised,
      since much of that description (which was faulty anyway) properly
      belongs to the analysis of the General Use. I count on you all to find
      any inaccuracies and mistakes -- they are bound to be numerous.

      The Tengwar description is at
      http://at.mansbjorkman.net/tengwar.htm

      the General Use description is at
      http://at.mansbjorkman.net/teng_general.htm

      Yours,
      Måns
    • j_mach_wust
      Måns Björkman wrote: ... ... Thank you very much for this excellent description! Amanye Tenceli, which has been, already before this update, the best
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 23, 2005
        Måns Björkman wrote:
        ...
        > I have today added to Amanye Tenceli a first attempt at describing
        > the Tengwar mode known as General Use. Partly as a consequence of
        > this, the overview description of the Tengwar has been extensively
        > revised, since much of that description (which was faulty anyway)
        > properly belongs to the analysis of the General Use. I count on you
        > all to find any inaccuracies and mistakes -- they are bound to be
        > numerous.
        >
        > The Tengwar description is at
        > http://at.mansbjorkman.net/tengwar.htm
        >
        > the General Use description is at
        > http://at.mansbjorkman.net/teng_general.htm
        ...


        Thank you very much for this excellent description! Amanye Tenceli,
        which has been, already before this update, the best internet resource
        about tengwar known to me, is now, as far as I know, the first
        internet resource to provide a reliable description of the general use
        and its application on English. I'll try to show my huge appreciation
        of your excellent work by criticizing it as scrupulously as possible,
        so this will be a long post.

        ---------------------------
        j. 'mach' wust
        http://machhezan.tripod.com
        ---------------------------



        ---------
        ---------

        TENGWAR - GENERAL USE

        English samples:

        DTS 11 is also "general use", and so presumably is Tolkien's name in
        DTS 56 (though I don't know that latter sample).

        In DTS 41, I consider the word "klædiowl?s" to be English, not Latin.
        It is only one word, but still, there are a three hints: The æ-sign is
        only used in English language specimina, the ou-diphthong is only
        expected in English, and the grave tehta at the end seems not to be a
        transcription of the Latin u-sound, but rather of a schwa sound as in
        English.

        ---------

        Quenya samples:

        The inclusion of DTS 49, 50 and 51 is an excellent idea!

        DTS 42 is also "general use", as can be seen from the representation
        of "nd" not with ando, but with ando + bar above.

        ---------

        Remark on the inclusion of the Old English samples:

        You have included the Old English specimina of DTS 50 and 51. However,
        you only describe the tehtar of DTS 50, but neither the tehtar of DTS
        51 nor the special tengwar uses of either sample: The representation
        of "w" by rómen, "wh" by the halla-rómen ligature (if you allow this
        interpretation) and the use of vilya and vala as independent vowel
        tengwar (vilya is attested many times in this use, vala in the last
        word of DTS 50 II, line 24). Incidently, you affirm in the Vowels
        section that the vowel tengwar are never used to represent vowels by
        themselves, which is wrong if DTS 50 is considered.

        In the description of the diaeresis tehta, the DTS 50 value is
        indicated as equally common as the "y"-value, whereas all other DTS 50
        values are marked as rarer values.

        ---------

        Introduction:

        Another possible hint that the "general use" was devised by Feanor
        already is the mention of a document from the 1930s named "Feänorian
        Alphabet. General or Phonetic form" (Parma Eldalamberon No. 13, p. 89).

        However, the analysis by Helios de Rosario Martínez of the internal
        structure of the tengwar shapes (see
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/message/2340 for a
        translation) rather suggests that the "general use" témar arrangement
        is a secondary development. Therefore, your affirmation that the
        general use arrangement is "quite possibly" as old as the writing
        system itself seems too hazardous to me at the current state of knowledge.

        ---------

        Vowels:

        Is "schwa" really the most common value of the dot below? I'd rather
        say "mute e" is, since the schwa-value is only attested in DTS 39.

        ---------

        Vowel Modifications: Diphthongs:

        In both the Latin and the English samples of DTS 41, we have
        diphthongs with the second part represented by a tengwa in modes where
        the vowel tehtar are usually placed above the preceding tengwar.
        However, you affirm that this is not possible.

        There are less samples of diphthongs written simply as two consecutive
        vowels than of diphthongs written as tehta + tengwa, as I have
        explained in
        http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/files/j_mach_wust/general_use.txt
        (it is slightly outdated since DTS 46 and 62 are not included yet, but
        they'd only add more samples of tehta + tengwa diphthongs).
        Nonetheless, your wording (unlike your illustration) rather prefers
        the two tehtar representation ("many samles" as opposed to "others",
        "only attested where", "only where", "unclear if"). The remark on the
        diphthongs stressed on the first vowel is futile, since all attested
        diphthongs are stressed on the first vowel.

        ---------

        Language-Specific Symbology: 1. English:

        The observation on Westron spelling is excellent!

        ---------

        a. Orthographic Spelling:

        Tolkien's name in DTS 56 might be another sample of this mode, and
        maybe DTS 11 as well.

        I think the affirmation that the spelling "often" deviates from the
        orthographic is exaggerated, especially since the history-sample is
        not a very clear case.

        You've forgotten to mention the prenasalization bar.

        I think the explanation why the long carrier is not used confuses
        considerations of spelling and of pronunciation. There are no "long
        vowels as such" in any orthography. The English orthography
        distinguishes simple and doubled vowel letters in the case of "e o"
        vs. "ee oo". Doubled letters of the Roman alphabet can be transcribed
        to tengwar in other ways than by doubling. Doubled consonant letters
        of the Roman alphabet are transcribed as modifications of simple
        consonant signs (tengwa + bar below), so we could expect the same with
        the transcription of doubled vowel letters (tehta on long carrier).
        However, this is simply not attested.

        ---------

        b. Phonemic Spelling:

        DTS 41 is not considered (see above).

        In the chart, vilya is marked as if it were not necessary even though
        it is attested in the (enigmatic) transcription of "lie" in DTS 36.
        The sound represented by noldo in the word "new" is not a palatal
        nasal, but plain [nj].

        You have not mentioned that the tehtar-tengwar order varies.

        You have chosen to use a phonemic spelling based on Received
        Pronunciation. I think this is not adequate since phonemic tengwar
        spellings is rhotic, but Received Pronunciation is not and since the
        Received Pronunciation diphthong [@w] (as in "shadOWs") is represented
        as [ow].

        ---------
        ---------

        THE TENGWAR OF FEANOR

        I'm not sure about that "greatest difference" of tengwar and sarati.
        Do we have any hint that the huge sarati variation can be situated at
        the same conceptual level as the fully developed tengwar? And as you
        point out above, the writing direction may vary in the tengwar as
        well. (You've misspelled "horizontal".)

        ---------

        Letters:

        Yanta is attested not to be a modification of anna, but a derivation
        of the sarati (Parma Eldalamberon 13, p. 88).

        ---------

        Diacritics:

        I don't see how the "inherent vowel" principle could explain the use
        of "óretyelle" tengwar as vowel signs.

        ---------

        Punctuation:

        I'd expect the instances of normal Latin orthography punctuation to be
        mentioned since this is common in the largest attested tengwar texts.
      • Arden R. Smith
        ... Sorry, but that manuscript describes quite a different mode, one that definitely does not take English phonology into account.
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 24, 2005
          On Jun 23, 2005, at 4:50 AM, j_mach_wust wrote:

          > Another possible hint that the "general use" was devised by Feanor
          > already is the mention of a document from the 1930s named "Feänorian
          > Alphabet. General or Phonetic form" (Parma Eldalamberon No. 13, p. 89).

          Sorry, but that manuscript describes quite a different mode, one that
          definitely does not take English phonology into account.

          ***************************************************
          Arden R. Smith erilaz@...

          Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
          --Elvish proverb

          ***************************************************
        • j_mach_wust
          Arden R. Smith wrote: ... ... The question is not about English phonology, but about témar use: According to Helios hypothesis, the original use would be
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 24, 2005
            Arden R. Smith wrote:
            ...
            > > Another possible hint that the "general use" was devised by Feanor
            > > already is the mention of a document from the 1930s named
            > > "Feänorian Alphabet. General or Phonetic form" (Parma Eldalamberon
            > > No. 13, p. 89).
            >
            > Sorry, but that manuscript describes quite a different mode, one
            > that definitely does not take English phonology into account.
            ...

            The question is not about English phonology, but about témar use:
            According to Helios' hypothesis, the original use would be calmatéma
            as k-row and quessetéma as qu-row, whereas the "general use" with
            calmatéma as ch-row and quessetéma as k-row would be a later innovation.

            If future material (always looking forward to more of your interesting
            and well analyzed publications!) will reveal that the "general use"
            arrangement was already used by Feanor himself, then the hypothesis
            will become almost pointless. It might still be upheld, arguing that
            the "general use", though devised by Feanor, was devised later than
            the other arrangement, but to me that's a less powerful hypothesis.

            Resuming Helios' argumentation: He observes that the témar arrangement
            of the old Elvish modes can be described with two features: ±velar
            which correspond to lúva placement on right/left side of the telco;
            and ±labialized which corresponds to opened/closed lúvar:

            t-row: -velar -labialized;
            p-row: -velar +labialized;
            k-row: +velar -labialized;
            qu-row: +velar +labialized;

            tincotéma: -left -closed lúva;
            parmatéma: -left +closed lúva;
            calmatéma: +left -closed lúva;
            quessetéma: +left +closed lúva.

            The "general use" arrangement can't be described in such an elegant
            and simple way.


            ---------------------------
            j. 'mach' wust
            http://machhezan.tripod.com
            ---------------------------
          • Arden R. Smith
            ... Let me rephrase it, then: The témar of the 1930s-vintage General or Phonetic form are assigned to the same points of articulation as in the usual
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 24, 2005
              On Jun 24, 2005, at 2:20 AM, j_mach_wust wrote:

              > The question is not about English phonology, but about témar use:
              > According to Helios' hypothesis, the original use would be calmatéma
              > as k-row and quessetéma as qu-row, whereas the "general use" with
              > calmatéma as ch-row and quessetéma as k-row would be a later
              > innovation.

              Let me rephrase it, then: The témar of the 1930s-vintage "General or
              Phonetic form" are assigned to the same points of articulation as in
              the usual Quenya mode, as per Helios' hypothesis.

              > (always looking forward to more of your interesting
              > and well analyzed publications!)

              Thank you! The material from the late 1920s, which I'm currently
              preparing for publication, contains some very interesting stuff, as
              well as plenty of grist for the discussion mill!

              ***************************************************
              Arden R. Smith erilaz@...

              Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
              --Elvish proverb

              ***************************************************
            • Måns Björkman
              ... Thank you very much for your detailed criticism! Since, as I predicted, the flaws are numerous, I shall digest your comments over the following days as
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 27, 2005
                "j_mach_wust" wrote:
                > Måns Björkman wrote:
                > ...
                > > I have today added to Amanye Tenceli a first attempt at describing
                > > the Tengwar mode known as General Use. [...]
                > >
                > > The Tengwar description is at
                > > http://at.mansbjorkman.net/tengwar.htm
                > >
                > > the General Use description is at
                > > http://at.mansbjorkman.net/teng_general.htm
                > ...
                >
                >
                > Thank you very much for this excellent description!
                > [...] I'll try to show my huge appreciation
                > of your excellent work by criticizing it as scrupulously as possible,
                > so this will be a long post.
                > [...]

                Thank you very much for your detailed criticism! Since, as I
                predicted, the flaws are numerous, I shall digest your comments over
                the following days as time allows, and hopefully make appropriate
                corrections.

                In a rush,

                Måns
              • Måns Björkman
                On June 23, J. Mach Wust wrote a long criticism of my description of the General Use at Amanye Tenceli. I am still working with many of his excellent
                Message 7 of 14 , Sep 3, 2005
                  On June 23, J. "Mach" Wust wrote a long criticism of my description of
                  the General Use at Amanye Tenceli. I am still working with many of his
                  excellent suggestions, but in the meantime I would like to adress a
                  particular subject that he raised:

                  He wrote:
                  > In DTS 41, I consider the word "klædiowl?s" to be English, not Latin.
                  > It is only one word, but still, there are a three hints: The æ-sign is
                  > only used in English language specimina, the ou-diphthong is only
                  > expected in English, and the grave tehta at the end seems not to be a
                  > transcription of the Latin u-sound, but rather of a schwa sound as in
                  > English.

                  I still think the word in question to be Latin by intention. But I am
                  under the impression that Tolkien did not represent the classical
                  pronounciation of Latin, but rather the pronounciation that he had
                  learned in school or in his church.

                  I believe a description of the source document is in place. DTS 41 is
                  an envelope that is covered by several tengwar texts. All except one
                  appear at a glance to be Latin. Hammond & Scull interpret them as
                  "gladiolus", "fatarum", "scandens", and the phraze "ab incursu et
                  daemonio meridiano" from Psalm 90 of the Vulgate. The word "gladiolus"
                  actually begins with a <quesse>, not with the expected <ungwe> for
                  /g/, but everyone seems to agree that this is a spelling error.

                  The three isolated words are written one below the other in the same
                  style (black ink outlines filled with red), while the other Tengwar
                  texts of the envelope share another, distinct style. The three words
                  thus bear a visual relationship.

                  The strongest reason to believe that "gladiolus" is meant to be Latin
                  is thus that it appears in a context that suggests it. "Gladiolus" is
                  of course also an English word, being another name for "sword lily".
                  English is notorious for borrowing from other languages, including
                  Latin. What about "fatarum" and "scandens" - are they English words as
                  well? No, not as such. But both have associations with plants.
                  _Fatarum_ is the scientific name of a species of hoverflies (or
                  "flowerflies"), while _scandens_ is a frequent scientific name for
                  various climbing plants. _Gladiolus_ is of course likewise the
                  scientific name of its genus. It is easy to imagine Tolkien sitting
                  with a book on gardening in front of him when jotting down these words.

                  So if we are to regard the three words as parts of taxonomic names,
                  the only reasonable language to attach them to would be Latin. The
                  objection to this is that the spelling of "gladiolus" appears to
                  represent English pronounciation: [g]lædiowl@s.

                  I think there is another Latin text on the envelope that does this,
                  too: in the phraze "ab incursu et daemonio meridiano", the diphthong
                  _ae_ is written <yanta + acute accent>, which suggests the
                  pronounciation [ej]. This is not correct classic pronounciation, but
                  it may very well be one heard in an English ecclesiastic or other
                  non-academic environment. "Gladiolus" can be taken as an English word,
                  but not this whole phraze.

                  My conclusion is therefore that all the aforementioned Tengwar texts
                  are meant to be Latin, but the spelling does not represent the classic
                  pronounciation. But surely Tolkien would know the classic
                  pronounciation of Latin? Certainly, but he would also be at home with
                  the pronounciation used in the church -- and I am told that Latin as
                  taught at the beginning of the 20th century often followed the native
                  pronounciation of the speaker.

                  Thoughts on this?

                  --Måns
                • Arden R. Smith
                  Excellent analysis, Måns! ... When I provided the readings of the words to Wayne and Christina, I was of course aware of _gladiolus_ as a plant name, but I
                  Message 8 of 14 , Sep 3, 2005
                    Excellent analysis, Måns!

                    > The strongest reason to believe that "gladiolus" is meant to be Latin
                    > is thus that it appears in a context that suggests it. "Gladiolus" is
                    > of course also an English word, being another name for "sword lily".
                    > English is notorious for borrowing from other languages, including
                    > Latin. What about "fatarum" and "scandens" - are they English words as
                    > well? No, not as such. But both have associations with plants.
                    > _Fatarum_ is the scientific name of a species of hoverflies (or
                    > "flowerflies"), while _scandens_ is a frequent scientific name for
                    > various climbing plants. _Gladiolus_ is of course likewise the
                    > scientific name of its genus. It is easy to imagine Tolkien sitting
                    > with a book on gardening in front of him when jotting down these words.

                    When I provided the readings of the words to Wayne and Christina, I was
                    of course aware of _gladiolus_ as a plant name, but I had no idea that
                    _fatarum_ and _scandens_ had any connection with plants, nor did I
                    until I read your recent post. Thank you for providing a link between
                    the words; the doodles make (somewhat) more sense now!

                    > So if we are to regard the three words as parts of taxonomic names,
                    > the only reasonable language to attach them to would be Latin. The
                    > objection to this is that the spelling of "gladiolus" appears to
                    > represent English pronounciation: [g]lædiowl@s.

                    Incidentally, what I actually wrote in my (neatly handwritten) notes to
                    Wayne and Christina here was:

                    clædiou(l@s (?) ('gladiolus'?)

                    [where <æ> was written as a digraph, <u(> was <u> with an inverted
                    subscript breve, and <@> was schwa]

                    > I think there is another Latin text on the envelope that does this,
                    > too: in the phraze "ab incursu et daemonio meridiano", the diphthong
                    > _ae_ is written <yanta + acute accent>, which suggests the
                    > pronounciation [ej]. This is not correct classic pronounciation, but
                    > it may very well be one heard in an English ecclesiastic or other
                    > non-academic environment.

                    My thoughts exactly.

                    > My conclusion is therefore that all the aforementioned Tengwar texts
                    > are meant to be Latin, but the spelling does not represent the classic
                    > pronounciation. But surely Tolkien would know the classic
                    > pronounciation of Latin? Certainly, but he would also be at home with
                    > the pronounciation used in the church -- and I am told that Latin as
                    > taught at the beginning of the 20th century often followed the native
                    > pronounciation of the speaker.

                    Tolkien's tengwar texts in Latin vary somewhat in this regard.
                    Classical pronunciation is the most common in the unpublished
                    manuscripts, but there are deviations. In one text, which will be
                    published in the next issue of _Parma Eldalamberon_, consonantal <v> is
                    represented twice as [v] and once as [w].


                    ***************************************************
                    Arden R. Smith erilaz@...

                    Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
                    --Elvish proverb

                    ***************************************************
                  • j_mach_wust
                    ... In Letters 306 he wrote: So I grew up in a two-front state, symbolizable by the Oratorian Italian pronunciation of Latin, and the strictly philological
                    Message 9 of 14 , Sep 3, 2005
                      --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Måns Björkman <mansb@h...> wrote:
                      ...
                      > But surely Tolkien would know the classic
                      > pronounciation of Latin? Certainly, but he would also be at home
                      > with the pronounciation used in the church -- and I am told that
                      > Latin as taught at the beginning of the 20th century often followed
                      > the native pronounciation of the speaker.

                      In Letters 306 he wrote: "So I grew up in a two-front state,
                      symbolizable by the Oratorian Italian pronunciation of Latin, and the
                      strictly 'philological' pronunciation at that time introduced into our
                      Cambridge dominated school."

                      The former refers to the catholic pronunciation, the latter to the
                      protestant pronunciation at King Edward's School.

                      I don't know what the Oratorian Italian pronunciation is, though as to
                      the "Italian" part of it, I imagine _ce ge_ to be pronounced [tSe dZe].

                      ---------------------------
                      j. 'mach' wust
                      http://machhezan.tripod.com
                      ---------------------------
                    • Melroch 'Aestan
                      ... The official Latin pronunciation of the RC church is simply the Italian one, with _c_ and _g_ as [tS] and [dZ] before front vowels, with _ti_ + vowel as
                      Message 10 of 14 , Sep 4, 2005
                        j_mach_wust skrev:


                        > I don't know what the Oratorian Italian pronunciation is, though as to
                        > the "Italian" part of it, I imagine _ce ge_ to be pronounced [tSe dZe].

                        The official Latin pronunciation of the RC church is simply
                        the Italian one, with _c_ and _g_ as [tS] and [dZ] before front
                        vowels, with _ti_ + vowel as [ts] + vowel and disregarding
                        quantity except for purposes of stress placement. I'm not
                        sure what they do to initial consonantal _i_ though.

                        --

                        /BP 8^)>
                        --
                        Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
                        A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
                        __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
                        \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
                        / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
                        / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
                        /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
                        Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
                        ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
                        || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
                        "A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)
                      • Måns Björkman
                        Mellyn, Based on Wust s comments, I have now extensively revised the overview and General Use Tengwar descriptions on Amanye Tenceli
                        Message 11 of 14 , Sep 5, 2005
                          Mellyn,

                          Based on Wust's comments, I have now extensively revised the overview
                          and General Use Tengwar descriptions on Amanye Tenceli
                          (http://at.mansbjorkman.net/tengwar.htm and
                          http://at.mansbjorkman.net/teng_general.htm). I just want to remark on
                          a few minor details.


                          --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@y...> wrote:
                          > ...
                          >
                          > TENGWAR - GENERAL USE
                          >
                          > English samples:
                          >
                          > DTS 11 is also "general use", and so presumably is Tolkien's name in
                          > DTS 56 (though I don't know that latter sample).

                          Indeed they are! DTS 56 is another example of phonemic spelling: the
                          Roman letter digraph "ie" in Tolkien's name is transcribed as a tehta
                          on a long carrier. The tehta looks like a grave accent, but the
                          inscription is made in such shaky handwriting that I strongly suspect
                          it is meant to stand for something else, probably a regular acute accent.


                          > In DTS 41, I consider the word "klædiowl?s" to be English, not Latin.

                          I guess we have covered this subject in the "Latin (?) Tengwar" thread.


                          > ---------
                          >
                          > Remark on the inclusion of the Old English samples:
                          >
                          > You have included the Old English specimina of DTS 50 and 51. However,
                          > you only describe the tehtar of DTS 50, but neither the tehtar of DTS
                          > 51 nor the special tengwar uses of either sample: The representation
                          > of "w" by rómen, "wh" by the halla-rómen ligature (if you allow this
                          > interpretation) and the use of vilya and vala as independent vowel
                          > tengwar (vilya is attested many times in this use, vala in the last
                          > word of DTS 50 II, line 24).

                          Yes, the Old English samples are in many ways special cases. I have
                          admittedly chosen a rather broad definition of the term "General Use".
                          The value /w/ for <rómen> has now been included but I have not added
                          the Old English /hw/ tengwa, simply because more exotic "additional
                          tengwar" will be adressed in the descriptions of each respective language.


                          > In the description of the diaeresis tehta, the DTS 50 value is
                          > indicated as equally common as the "y"-value, whereas all other DTS 50
                          > values are marked as rarer values.

                          The wording is now altered so as to make no assessment of which values
                          are more common.


                          > a. Orthographic Spelling:
                          >
                          > ...
                          >
                          > You've forgotten to mention the prenasalization bar.

                          No, but the division into different subheadings might be confusing. I
                          hope the added note makes it more clear.


                          > b. Phonemic Spelling:
                          >
                          > ...
                          >
                          > In the chart, vilya is marked as if it were not necessary even though
                          > it is attested in the (enigmatic) transcription of "lie" in DTS 36.

                          I am not sure how to treat this. To me, the use of <vilya> for [j] is
                          quite clearly a mistake. I base this on three facts:
                          1) Given the points of articulation for the témar in this mode, we
                          would expect <vilya> to represent a velar, not a palatal.
                          2) The preceding tengwa in the text is a <lambe>, and it is possible
                          to see the closing line of <vilya> as an extension of the top line in
                          the <lambe>.
                          3) DTS 36 is a draft of the Two Towers cover, and the spelling was
                          corrected to <anna> in the final version (DTS 37).


                          Yours,
                          Måns
                        • i_degilbor
                          ... In ecclestiastical Latin pronunciation, initial consonantal _i_ is peronounced /j/. It is often spelt _j_ as well (e.g. _Jesu_ rather than _Iesu_, _jam_
                          Message 12 of 14 , Sep 5, 2005
                            Teithant Melroch 'Aestan:
                            > The official Latin pronunciation of the RC church is simply
                            > the Italian one, with _c_ and _g_ as [tS] and [dZ] before front
                            > vowels, with _ti_ + vowel as [ts] + vowel and disregarding
                            > quantity except for purposes of stress placement. I'm not
                            > sure what they do to initial consonantal _i_ though.

                            In ecclestiastical Latin pronunciation, initial consonantal _i_ is
                            peronounced /j/. It is often spelt _j_ as well (e.g. _Jesu_ rather
                            than _Iesu_, _jam_ rather than _iam_, etc.). For the most part, the
                            pronunciation of the Latin words is based on the pronunciation of
                            their Latin descendants. A notable exception is the pronunciation of
                            intervocalic _h_ in the words _mihi_ and _nihil_: the _h_ is
                            pronounced /k/.

                            Cuio mae, Danny.
                          • j_mach_wust
                            Måns Björkman wrote: ... English phonology, Latin language. Fair enough. ... As I ve said in message #4456, I imagine there might be an interdependence
                            Message 13 of 14 , Sep 5, 2005
                              Måns Björkman wrote:
                              ...
                              > --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@y...>
                              > wrote:
                              > > ...
                              > >
                              > > TENGWAR - GENERAL USE
                              > >
                              > > English samples:
                              > >
                              > > DTS 11 is also "general use", and so presumably is Tolkien's name
                              > > in DTS 56 (though I don't know that latter sample).
                              >
                              > Indeed they are! DTS 56 is another example of phonemic spelling: the
                              > Roman letter digraph "ie" in Tolkien's name is transcribed as a
                              > tehta on a long carrier. The tehta looks like a grave accent, but
                              > the inscription is made in such shaky handwriting that I strongly
                              > suspect it is meant to stand for something else, probably a regular
                              > acute accent.
                              >
                              >
                              > > In DTS 41, I consider the word "klædiowl?s" to be English, not
                              > > Latin.
                              >
                              > I guess we have covered this subject in the "Latin (?) Tengwar"
                              > thread.

                              English phonology, Latin language. Fair enough.


                              ...
                              > The value /w/ for <rómen> has now been included but I have not added
                              > the Old English /hw/ tengwa, simply because more exotic "additional
                              > tengwar" will be adressed in the descriptions of each respective
                              > language.

                              As I've said in message #4456, I imagine there might be an
                              interdependence between the use of rómen for W and of the halla-rómen
                              ligature for HW. The only published texts that use rómen for W and at
                              the same time show instances of HW are the Anglosaxon texts, so
                              there's not much evidence for that interdependence. The idea that the
                              values of certain signs interdepend with the value of similar signs,
                              however, is very characteristic to the tengwar. In any case, you're
                              right that the halla-rómen ligature is exotic. But isn't the use of
                              rómen for W as well?

                              ...
                              > > b. Phonemic Spelling:
                              > >
                              > > ...
                              > >
                              > > In the chart, vilya is marked as if it were not necessary even
                              > > though it is attested in the (enigmatic) transcription of "lie" in
                              > > DTS 36.
                              >
                              > I am not sure how to treat this. To me, the use of <vilya> for [j]
                              > is quite clearly a mistake. I base this on three facts:

                              I think we can't even be sure that it is intended to represent [j]. It
                              might also be a representation of <e>, since the original text of that
                              line has "lie", so that use of vilya for <e> could be equivalent to
                              the use of yanta for <e> in DTS 62, if we assume it were intended to
                              be an orthographic transcription. If it really were an orthographic
                              transcription, then we'd expect the silent <e> of the word 'where' to
                              be transcribed with a dot below, yet there is none. However, the
                              nasalization bar in the word 'land' is also missing. Except for that
                              'e' in "where" and for the transcription of "lie", we can't decide
                              whether it is a phonemic or an orthographic transcription. What
                              puzzles me most is the diaeresis tehta in the transcription of "lie"
                              which is not found in any other English tehtar mode (if I'm not wrong)
                              and which makes the word look as if it were transcribed in the full
                              mode of DTS 16 etc.

                              > 1) Given the points of articulation for the témar in this mode, we
                              > would expect <vilya> to represent a velar, not a palatal.

                              Definitly not palatal, but perhaps a vowel or a glottal stop.

                              > 2) The preceding tengwa in the text is a <lambe>, and it is possible
                              > to see the closing line of <vilya> as an extension of the top line
                              > in the <lambe>.

                              I'm not sure about that one. Calligraphically, the text looks quite
                              carefully written. And is there any other evidence for a lambe closing
                              line extending onto a following calmatéma tengwa?

                              > 3) DTS 36 is a draft of the Two Towers cover, and the spelling was
                              > corrected to <anna> in the final version (DTS 37).

                              And the two dot tehta was corrected to a three dot tehta. I agree that
                              this sample is not important in a description of the general use.

                              ---------------------------
                              j. 'mach' wust
                              http://machhezan.tripod.com
                              ---------------------------
                            • Måns Björkman
                              ... It certainly is, though not as exotic as the halla-rómen ligature . And as regards my article, I figured I should try to include every known value of the
                              Message 14 of 14 , Sep 5, 2005
                                --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@y...> wrote:
                                > ...
                                > As I've said in message #4456, I imagine there might be an
                                > interdependence between the use of rómen for W and of the halla-rómen
                                > ligature for HW. The only published texts that use rómen for W and at
                                > the same time show instances of HW are the Anglosaxon texts, so
                                > there's not much evidence for that interdependence. The idea that the
                                > values of certain signs interdepend with the value of similar signs,
                                > however, is very characteristic to the tengwar. In any case, you're
                                > right that the halla-rómen ligature is exotic. But isn't the use of
                                > rómen for W as well?

                                It certainly is, though not as exotic as the "halla-rómen ligature".
                                And as regards my article, I figured I should try to include every
                                known value of the tengwar that I do list.


                                > ...
                                > > > b. Phonemic Spelling:
                                > > >
                                > > > ...
                                > > >
                                > > > In the chart, vilya is marked as if it were not necessary even
                                > > > though it is attested in the (enigmatic) transcription of "lie" in
                                > > > DTS 36.
                                > >
                                > > I am not sure how to treat this. To me, the use of <vilya> for [j]
                                > > is quite clearly a mistake. I base this on three facts:
                                >
                                > I think we can't even be sure that it is intended to represent [j]. It
                                > might also be a representation of <e>, since the original text of that
                                > line has "lie", so that use of vilya for <e> could be equivalent to
                                > the use of yanta for <e> in DTS 62, if we assume it were intended to
                                > be an orthographic transcription.

                                That would be the only attested use of <vilya> for /e/, wouldn't it?
                                (I'm not saying that it would be impossible for that reason, of course.)


                                > If it really were an orthographic
                                > transcription, then we'd expect the silent <e> of the word 'where' to
                                > be transcribed with a dot below, yet there is none. However, the
                                > nasalization bar in the word 'land' is also missing.

                                "The lad of Mordor". Isn't that Sauron? :)


                                > Except for that
                                > 'e' in "where" and for the transcription of "lie", we can't decide
                                > whether it is a phonemic or an orthographic transcription. What
                                > puzzles me most is the diaeresis tehta in the transcription of "lie"
                                > which is not found in any other English tehtar mode (if I'm not wrong)
                                > and which makes the word look as if it were transcribed in the full
                                > mode of DTS 16 etc.

                                Yes, now that you mention it, it looks to me as though Tolkien
                                accidently switched into a different mode.


                                > > 1) Given the points of articulation for the témar in this mode, we
                                > > would expect <vilya> to represent a velar, not a palatal.
                                >
                                > Definitly not palatal, but perhaps a vowel or a glottal stop.

                                Yes, that is possible.


                                > > 2) The preceding tengwa in the text is a <lambe>, and it is possible
                                > > to see the closing line of <vilya> as an extension of the top line
                                > > in the <lambe>.
                                >
                                > I'm not sure about that one. Calligraphically, the text looks quite
                                > carefully written. And is there any other evidence for a lambe closing
                                > line extending onto a following calmatéma tengwa?

                                None that I can think of at the top of my head. On the other hand,
                                there is little other evidence for <vilya> representing /e/ or /j/ either.


                                Yours,
                                Måns
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.