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

Re: Latin (?) Tengwar

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.