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

Re: Latin (?) Tengwar

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , Sep 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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 2 of 14 , Sep 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 14 , Sep 5, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 14 , Sep 5, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 14 , Sep 5, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 14 , Sep 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- 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.