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

Happy New Year Elf Script v3

Expand Messages
  • David J. Finnamore
    OK, v3 is up but I forgot to check send message. It s at http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/files/happynewyearelfscript3.jpg I stuck w Kyrmse s
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      OK, v3 is up but I forgot to check "send message." It's at
      http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/files/happynewyearelfscript3.jpg

      I stuck w Kyrmse's vowel system, including for the indefinite article.
      Even though it's now more traditional spelling than phonemic, I
      followed your example, j. mach (is that what I should call you?), and
      dropped the under dots for following silent e's. That makes more sense
      when the rest of your vowels lie on following consonants, I think. I
      added an under dot for the "er" in greater, deciding that that was
      closer to Kyrmse's meaning for situations like that (than a long
      carrier carrying nothing preceding óre). If this is traditional
      spelling mode, we need something to represent the "e" there.

      I pulled the tehtar from the word "and" following your example.

      Again, because this is traditional English spelling mode, I kept the w
      (vilya instead of úre now) in "write" to distinguish it from "right"
      and "rite." I dropped the silent "gh" but I wonder now whether they
      should be kept to distinguish "right" from "rite."

      I kept "Iluvatar" the same because it's not an English word. I made
      it the way I think it would be made in the mode of Gondor.

      The dbl under dots in the word "new" were a revelation. I knew
      something should indicate the "y" sound that trained English speakers
      put in "new" (most Americans pronounce "new" and "gnu" the same) but I
      didn't know what.

      David "Daeron" Finnamore
      www.elvenminstrel.com
    • j_mach_wust
      ... http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/files/happynewyearelfscript3.jpg First of all, what I m most uncomfortable with is that you still are using
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 31, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        David "Daeron" Finnamore wrote:
        >
        > OK, v3 is up but I forgot to check "send message." It's at
        >
        http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/files/happynewyearelfscript3.jpg

        First of all, what I'm most uncomfortable with is that you still are
        using yanta and úre for following -i/-y and -u/-w, while Tolkien has
        used anna and vala.

        > I stuck w Kyrmse's vowel system, including for the indefinite
        > article. Even though it's now more traditional spelling than
        > phonemic,

        I really don't think that your transcription is more traditional
        spelling. The difference between phonemic and traditional spelling is
        after all in the representation of the vowels, whereas the
        representation of the consonants is more or less the same in either
        mode (except for instance the silent "gh"). Now you have represented
        the word "may" all phonemically as if it were "mej", that is to say,
        no "a" at all, but rather according to pronunciation with "ej", just
        as J. R. R. Tolkien did in his phonemic transcription of the word
        "praise" which he transcribed as "prejz".

        > I followed your example, j. mach (is that what I should
        > call you?),

        sure

        > and dropped the under dots for following silent e's.
        > That makes more sense when the rest of your vowels lie on following
        > consonants, I think. I added an under dot for the "er" in greater,
        > deciding that that was closer to Kyrmse's meaning for situations
        > like that (than a long carrier carrying nothing preceding óre).
        ...

        Actually, I think that J. R. R. Tolkien used óre rather like a vowel
        letter, that is to say, with no preceding vowel tehta at all,
        especially no dots underneath. In the unstressed word "for", he used
        no tehta at all. Consequently, the unstressed syllable "er" within the
        word "greater" wouldn't require any vowel tehta (dot below) either.

        > Again, because this is traditional English spelling mode, I kept the
        > w (vilya instead of úre now) in "write" to distinguish it from
        > "right" and "rite." I dropped the silent "gh" but I wonder now
        > whether they should be kept to distinguish "right" from "rite."
        ...

        Since I rather think, because of the vowel representations you've
        chosen, that this is a phonemic spelling mode and not a traditional
        spelling mode, I'd rather recommend you note to write any "w" in
        "write" since you don't pronounce it different from "rite" (ore "right").

        > The dbl under dots in the word "new" were a revelation. I knew
        > something should indicate the "y" sound that trained English
        > speakers put in "new" (most Americans pronounce "new" and "gnu" the
        > same) but I didn't know what.
        ...

        This is a difference between dialects of English. I consider (but this
        is only my personal opinion!) that you don't need to put any "j" where
        you don't pronounce them. My own pronunciation of English is rather
        influenced by the British pronunciation (since I live in Europe), so
        I'd put a "j" in my phonemic transcription of "njuu", but since you
        seem to live in the States and consequently don't pronounce any "j" in
        your pronunciation of "nuu" I think it's all right if you don't use
        any dots below; be aware that this is only my personal opinion; I know
        neither of any Tolkien texts this could be based on nor of any Tolkien
        texts that would prove this wrong; we just can't decide.

        ---------------------------
        j. 'mach' wust
        http://machhezan.tripod.com
        ---------------------------
      • David J. Finnamore
        ... That was per Kyrmse s recommendation, which I thought you had said was good. Maybe you meant his earlier work, not specifically his new proposal. He
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@y...> wrote:
          > First of all, what I'm most uncomfortable with is that you still are
          > using yanta and úre for following -i/-y and -u/-w, while Tolkien has
          > used anna and vala.

          That was per Kyrmse's recommendation, which I thought you had said was
          good. Maybe you meant his earlier work, not specifically his new
          proposal. He claims that it doesn't deviate overmuch from Tolkien's
          usage, but perhaps it does after all.


          > I really don't think that your transcription is more traditional
          > spelling. The difference between phonemic and traditional spelling is
          > after all in the representation of the vowels

          I see your point. The proposal I was following for vowels is a
          phonemic tehtar mode. So, by definition it can't be used for a
          traditional English spelling scheme. Apparently, Kyrmse doesn't share
          the opinion that we have insufficient knowledge to devise a usable
          phonemic tehtar mode for English, since he bothered to propose one.

          Ah, well. I hope that my new year's wish for elfscript will be
          accepted by all in the joyful and generous spirit in which it was
          offered, despite the many newbie blunders in its presentation. I
          guess it was too ambitious a project for me. Thank you for taking
          time to critique it.

          David "Daeron" Finnamore
          http://www.elvenminstrel.com
        • Dave
          ... From: David J. Finnamore To: Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 5:51 PM Subject: [elfscript] Re: Happy
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "David J. Finnamore" <daeron@...>
            To: <elfscript@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 5:51 PM
            Subject: [elfscript] Re: Happy New Year Elf Script v3


            --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@y...> wrote:
            > First of all, what I'm most uncomfortable with is that you still are
            > using yanta and úre for following -i/-y and -u/-w, while Tolkien has
            > used anna and vala.

            That was per Kyrmse's recommendation, which I thought you had said was
            good.

            <<<Yes, but his proposal is for a phonemic _full_ mode as far as I can tell,
            not a tehta mode. For tehta modes, it's probably better to rely on DTS 39,
            where the "ai" in "praise" is spelled with e-tehta on top of anna (I think
            this is what J. Mach Wust was referring to with regard to -i/-y), or maybe
            DTS 37 ("lay"), though that sample strikes me as somewhat less phonemic (?).

            As for -u/-w, I think we can only extrapolate from more or less orthographic
            samples such as DTS 5 and 10 (the second greeting).

            Hm Hoom, I'm sure J. Mach Wust will have something more to say...

            Happy New Year!>>>

            Apparently, Kyrmse doesn't share
            the opinion that we have insufficient knowledge to devise a usable
            phonemic tehtar mode for English, since he bothered to propose one.

            <<<Where? I'm just curious. All I could find where phonemic and orthographic
            _full_ modes...>>>

            Hisilome
          • j_mach_wust
            ... I didn t know his tehtar proposal either. It s a pdf you can access at Ronald s site: http://www.geocities.com/otsoandor/ I like his analysis of English
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              David J. Finnamore wrote:

              > Apparently, Kyrmse doesn't share
              > the opinion that we have insufficient knowledge to devise a usable
              > phonemic tehtar mode for English, since he bothered to propose one.

              Dave "Hisilome" replied:

              > <<<Where? I'm just curious. All I could find where phonemic and
              > orthographic _full_ modes...>>>

              I didn't know his tehtar proposal either. It's a pdf you can access at
              Ronald's site:

              http://www.geocities.com/otsoandor/

              I like his analysis of English "full writing" better than that proposal.

              ---------------------------
              j. 'mach' wust
              http://machhezan.tripod.com
              ---------------------------
            • Dave
              ... From: j_mach_wust To: Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:11 AM Subject: [elfscript] Re: Happy New Year
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...>
                To: <elfscript@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:11 AM
                Subject: [elfscript] Re: Happy New Year Elf Script v3


                > David J. Finnamore wrote:
                >
                >> Apparently, Kyrmse doesn't share
                >> the opinion that we have insufficient knowledge to devise a usable
                >> phonemic tehtar mode for English, since he bothered to propose one.
                >
                > Dave "Hisilome" replied:
                >
                >> <<<Where? I'm just curious. All I could find where phonemic and
                >> orthographic _full_ modes...>>>
                >
                > I didn't know his tehtar proposal either. It's a pdf you can access at
                > Ronald's site:
                >
                > http://www.geocities.com/otsoandor/
                >
                > I like his analysis of English "full writing" better than that proposal.


                <<< I agree (and thanks for the link!). There's simply too little material
                to go on, especially for the usually more controversial vowels and
                diphthongs (and even for the -i/-y sound that was also at issue [where we do
                have a sample to guide us] Ronald Kyrmse chose a different option from the
                attested one).
                All in all, how many authentic (Tolkien) samples do we have for English
                orthographic tehta writing? There are the doodles from AI (illustration
                184/DTS 39), but apart from that?

                DTS 41 is maybe (?) also phonemic, but most of it is Latin. I remember
                reading some interesting speculation about the _buubls_ at the bottom
                (middle right) of the envelope, forget where though. If it really means
                "doodles", well, it would probably qualify as phonemic (u-tehta [not
                o-tehta] on long carrier to express the sound of English double "u", and
                assuming that "d" is misspelt as "b").
                As for Latin, it's more like Quenya and Sindarin in that the difference
                between phonemic and orthographic spelling wouldn't be so big to begin with,
                due to the much clearer and more consistent relationship between sound and
                spelling. Also, Latin vowels have (had...) a much more uniform pronuncation
                as far as we know, again more like Quenya. For the elven tongues at least,
                the distinction between phonemic/phonetic and orthographic spelling isn't at
                all meaningful, and for me that's part of the appeal of, say, the "classical
                Quenya mode". In Sindarin, we have the major distinction between tehta and
                full writing modes, but again, orthographic and phonemic spelling are
                basically one and the same.

                Personally, I also prefer to use tehta modes for orthographic English
                tengwar texts, and full modes for phonemic English tengwar texts. Maybe
                that's because this was also the way Tolkien seems to have preferred it,
                judging by the specimens we have. So if one wants to stick as closely to the
                "authentic" texts as possible, this is probably the way to go.

                Having said all that, I've followd the "development" of D. Finnamore's New
                Year message with interest, including your proposal for a phonemic tehta
                transcription. About the latter, I have only two little questions: what
                exactly are the two underdots for palatalization based on? Did I understand
                you correctly in message #5090 that this is just your extrapolation (from
                Quenya it would seem?), or did you (as so often) notice something I
                overlooked? (I wasn't sure when saying that "this is only my personal
                opinion" whether you were referring to the use of the underdots being
                optional, depending on the English "dialect", or to the use of underdots for
                palatalization _at all_ in English modes.)

                The other thing: the usage of the grave accent on silme nuquerna to spell
                the English word "us", is that based on DTS 41 mentioned above? More
                precisely, on the spelling of _kladiowl&s_?
                "&" = the sound that follows "l"--in your article on Tolkien's Phonetic
                English modes, you say that "this tehta represents the schwa-sound". (If we
                accept this, I guess it's a good representation of the "u" in "us", in
                particular when the word is pronounced lightly, i.e. doesn't receive
                particular stress, as would be the case in the text we're dealing with.)
                I gather you assume that Tolkien wrote the Latin words in this specimen as
                if pronouncing them in modern English. For "kladiowl&s" I might follow
                along. I'm less sure about "fatarum", for example. If that also were to
                represent modern English pronunciation, wouldn't we then expect the first
                "a" and the "u" to also be schwas? Same for the "e" in "scandens". And same
                doubts also apply to the "ab icursu..." (misspelt for "incursu"?) phrase.
                Well, just curious what your opinion is. Maybe Tolkien wasn't entirely
                consistent here. After all, it's just--doodles! :) >>>

                Greetings,

                Hisilome
              • j_mach_wust
                Dave Hisilome wrote: ... Måns list is quite useful: http://at.mansbjorkman.net/teng_general_english.htm#eng_phon As you ve said, I d however also include
                Message 7 of 10 , Jan 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dave "Hisilome" wrote:
                  ...
                  > All in all, how many authentic (Tolkien) samples do we have for
                  > English orthographic tehta writing? There are the doodles from AI
                  > (illustration 184/DTS 39), but apart from that?

                  Måns' list is quite useful:

                  http://at.mansbjorkman.net/teng_general_english.htm#eng_phon

                  As you've said, I'd however also include DTS 41 as far as it clearly
                  is written in English pronunciation, that is to say, at least the word
                  "cladiolus" and maybe "boobles". By the way, it was David Salo who
                  proposed the reading "doodles":

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/26566

                  ...
                  > For the elven tongues at least, the distinction
                  > between phonemic/phonetic and orthographic spelling isn't at all
                  > meaningful, and for me that's part of the appeal of, say, the
                  > "classical Quenya mode".

                  I guess you're only saying that because by comparison to English,
                  there is very few distinction between phonemic and orthographic
                  spelling in languages like Quenya, Sindarin or, for instance, Spanish.
                  Nonetheless, we can clearly distinguish phonemic and orthographic
                  transcriptions of such languages. In Quenya, we have for instance on
                  one hand the theoretical claim that the s-sound that originally was þ
                  (TH) is still written with súle (orthographic approach), but on the
                  other hand, that s-sound is written with silme in the known tengwar
                  texts (phonemic approach).

                  ...
                  > Personally, I also prefer to use tehta modes for orthographic
                  > English tengwar texts, and full modes for phonemic English tengwar
                  > texts. Maybe that's because this was also the way Tolkien seems to
                  > have preferred it, judging by the specimens we have.

                  I'm not so sure about that. There is little data. I thought that also
                  in the orthographic modes, there are more samples of "full writing"
                  than of tehtar modes.

                  ...
                  > what exactly are the two underdots for
                  > palatalization based on? Did I understand you correctly in message
                  > #5090 that this is just your extrapolation (from Quenya it would
                  > seem?), or did you (as so often) notice something I overlooked? (I
                  > wasn't sure when saying that "this is only my personal opinion"
                  > whether you were referring to the use of the underdots being
                  > optional, depending on the English "dialect", or to the use of
                  > underdots for palatalization _at all_ in English modes.)

                  It was my opinion about the indication of the palatalization in words
                  such as "due", "new", "mute", "suit". Or, even more generally
                  speaking, I was talking about which differences between the varieties
                  of English I consider should be represented in a phonemic
                  transcription and which shouldn't, similar to what I've tried to
                  explain in the section "Some Thoughts on How to Spell Words" in the
                  following pdf:

                  http://machhezan.tripod.com/phonetic_tengwar_modes/treebeard_6dec2003.pdf

                  > The other thing: the usage of the grave accent on silme nuquerna
                  > to spell the English word "us", is that based on DTS 41 mentioned
                  > above? More precisely, on the spelling of _kladiowl&s_?
                  > "&" = the sound that follows "l"--in your article on Tolkien's
                  > Phonetic English modes, you say that "this tehta represents the
                  > schwa-sound". (If we accept this, I guess it's a good
                  > representation of the "u" in "us", in particular when the word is
                  > pronounced lightly, i.e. doesn't receive particular stress, as
                  > would be the case in the text we're dealing with.)
                  ...

                  Exactly. Unfortunately, we don't have any sample of the (stressed)
                  vowel of "nut" in a phonemic tehtar mode. We know that in phonemic
                  "full writing", this sound wasn't represented in the same way as the
                  (unstressed) schwa vowel (for instance in the last and the first
                  syllable of "AmericA" or in "gladiolUs").

                  Having another look at the sarati samples, I've found that the sample
                  R22 is comparable to the phonemic tehtar modes because it also
                  distinguishs two different uses of the dot according to its position
                  (though it's not above-below but rather left-right). It is a quite a
                  long text (I've counted 318 letters excluding the tehtar), and it has
                  many occurences of the "nut" vowel, of initial schwa, of medial schwa,
                  of syllabic N M L R analyzed as combinations with preceding schwa, and
                  one occurence of the indefinite article "a", all represented by a
                  single dot on the opposite side of the following letter. So based on
                  R22, we could use a dot below the following tengwa.

                  Unfortunately, R22 has no instance of a final schwa (except for the
                  many occurences of the word "the" wich is however written as if it
                  were "eth", so I don't think this can be a model for a transcription
                  of other words with final schwa such as "Edna", "data", "etcetera"). A
                  short carrier with a dot below might be used. However, I'm not so sure
                  whether there should be any final short carriers at all in such a mode
                  or whether tehtar modes allow carrier to be used in any other way than
                  with a tehta above; it is certainly not attested.

                  Another problem of using the dot below the following tengwa in
                  accordance to R22 is that such a use can collide with two dots below
                  being used for a following j. Consider for instance the phrase "a cute
                  one" or the word "accuse". Here, the k-letter quesse would have both
                  the two dots for the following j below and the single dot for the
                  preceding schwa, that is, it would have three dots below. We might
                  just not care and use three dots below anyway, or we might place the
                  two dots for the following j above the tengwa since its position seems
                  to be variable.

                  I have now updated my phonemic transcription of David's greetings so
                  they use the dot below:

                  http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/files/j_mach_wust/haepi_njuu_jiir.png


                  Anyway, I hope that in the next numbers of Parma Eldalamberon to be
                  published we will finally find a phonemic tehtar mode with a sample of
                  the "nut" vowel. I think this is not so improbable because I assume
                  that Arden R. Smith has now published all of Tolkien's alphabets
                  previous to the tengwar, so now it's time for the early tengwar documents.

                  ---------------------------
                  j. 'mach' wust
                  http://machhezan.tripod.com
                  ---------------------------
                • Dave
                  ... From: j_mach_wust To: Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 10:27 PM Subject: [elfscript] Re: Happy New Year
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jan 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...>
                    To: <elfscript@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 10:27 PM
                    Subject: [elfscript] Re: Happy New Year Elf Script v3

                    j_mach_wust wrote:

                    > All in all, how many authentic (Tolkien) samples do we have for
                    > English orthographic tehta writing?

                    Måns' list is quite useful:

                    http://at.mansbjorkman.net/teng_general_english.htm#eng_phon

                    <<< Right, I should have known to look there...still, even taking all those
                    samples into account, it's not much to base a "mode" on. Thanks also for
                    pointing me to the little discussion about "buubls"/"doodles". >>>


                    ...I guess you're only saying that because by comparison to English,
                    there is very few distinction between phonemic and orthographic
                    spelling in languages like Quenya, Sindarin or, for instance, Spanish.
                    Nonetheless, we can clearly distinguish phonemic and orthographic
                    transcriptions of such languages. In Quenya, we have for instance on
                    one hand the theoretical claim that the s-sound that originally was þ
                    (TH) is still written with súle (orthographic approach), but on the
                    other hand, that s-sound is written with silme in the known tengwar
                    texts (phonemic approach).

                    <<< Correct, but as you say, those instances are few and far between--part
                    of the reason maybe being that Elvish, and Quenya in particular, was simply
                    comparatively more resistant to change than mortal tongues (in addition to
                    the TH/S issue, there's the X[maHta]/H complex [harma/aha/hyarmen], the ng/n
                    issue [noldo/nuumen], and one could argue that the oore/roomen distinction
                    is a phonemic element).
                    On the other hand, Spanish or German are mortal tongues just as English, but
                    it seems that they have a) proved a bit less susceptible to change and, more
                    importantly, b) that probably more efforts at "updating" the orthography
                    where made whenever it threatened to drift too far from actual
                    pronunciation--though I'm by no means an expert on these issues. >>>

                    ...
                    > Personally, I also prefer to use tehta modes for orthographic
                    > English tengwar texts, and full modes for phonemic English tengwar
                    > texts. Maybe that's because this was also the way Tolkien seems to
                    > have preferred it, judging by the specimens we have.

                    I'm not so sure about that. There is little data. I thought that also
                    in the orthographic modes, there are more samples of "full writing"
                    than of tehtar modes.

                    <<< Hm hoom. Let's see. Orthographic tehta modes (English): DTS 5 (well
                    there's the spelling of "war", but by and large...), DTS 10 (Brogan
                    greetings, second part), DTS 62. Orthographic full modes (English): DTS 36,
                    37, 39, 47, 56, 58.
                    Sure, there are more specimens for the latter, but if you look at the length
                    of the specimens in question, you find that DTS 36 and 37 each contain nine
                    words (and are largely indentical on top of that), 39 has 11 words (if you
                    count _yomo knnatta_--I've seen this interpreted as _knyatt_ (Mellonath
                    Daeron Index) or "knyatta", but doesn't the wavy line/bar on top indicate a
                    preceding nasal in the general mode?? what's that all about...), DTS 47 has
                    four words (five if you count the tengwar shorthand for "of the" as two
                    words), DTS 56 (English part) consists of "JRR Tolkien", and 58 gives two
                    different spellings each for "Imladrist" and "Rivendell". Total count, even
                    if we're very generous: about fourty.
                    As for the orthographic mode samples, togehter we have almost 70 words (and
                    I suspect if we'd be counting tengwa letters, there'd also be more), not to
                    mention the fact that all these samples, contain continuous text without
                    repetitions.
                    OK, it's not really as convincing as I thought :), but yet there seems to be
                    a slant towards the orthographic tehta modes. As someone, I think it was you
                    (I hope I'm not wrong) speculated here recently, this may have been a
                    concession Tolkien made to the "general public" (DTS 5: title page of LotR;
                    DTS 10: written for a young "fan"; DTS 62: a dedication--so yes, one could
                    say that), and (in private) he really preferred full modes, even for
                    orthographic writing. What's certain is that he seems to have preferred
                    phonemic writing for English texts, and the by far the largest amount of
                    such text was in full writing. >>>

                    ...
                    > what exactly are the two underdots for
                    > palatalization based on?...

                    It was my opinion about the indication of the palatalization in words
                    such as "due", "new", "mute", "suit". Or, even more generally
                    speaking, I was talking about which differences between the varieties
                    of English I consider should be represented in a phonemic
                    transcription and which shouldn't, similar to what I've tried to
                    explain in the section "Some Thoughts on How to Spell Words" in the
                    following pdf:

                    http://machhezan.tripod.com/phonetic_tengwar_modes/treebeard_6dec2003.pdf

                    <<< I'm quite familiar with that file. :) That's also where you write about
                    that _kladiowl&s_ schwa, etc.
                    What I was asking in a rather long-winded manner was simply: did Tolkien
                    himself ever use the two underdots to indicate palatalization in any English
                    tengwar text? I couldn't find any instance, but I thought maybe you had. I
                    gather, though, that it's really "just" extrapolated from Quenya (?).
                    BTW, I'd say "mute" is always palatalized, even in "US usage", while I agree
                    that the others would often/usuallly not be. >>>


                    > The other thing: the usage of the grave accent on silme nuquerna
                    > to spell the English word "us", is that based on DTS 41 mentioned
                    > above? More precisely, on the spelling of _kladiowl&s_?
                    ...

                    Exactly. Unfortunately, we don't have any sample of the (stressed)
                    vowel of "nut" in a phonemic tehtar mode. We know that in phonemic
                    "full writing", this sound wasn't represented in the same way as the
                    (unstressed) schwa vowel (for instance in the last and the first
                    syllable of "AmericA" or in "gladiolUs").

                    <<< Ah, this is the really interesting part. The Walrus and the Carpenter...
                    PE 13 has been sitting on my shelf for quite a while now, but I've failed to
                    give it more than a cursory glance, though R22, with its continuous texts,
                    did catch my attention. I'll have to give it a more careful reading. >>>

                    ...
                    So based on R22, we could use a dot below the following tengwa.

                    <<< Quite daring extrapolation, really, but why not? So far, we don't have
                    much else to go on for this particular point, it seems. >>>

                    ...

                    Another problem of using the dot below the following tengwa in
                    accordance to R22 is that such a use can collide with two dots below
                    being used for a following j.

                    <<< Again, isn't this usage only attested in the "classical" Quenya mode?
                    >>>

                    Consider for instance the phrase "a cute
                    one" or the word "accuse". Here, the k-letter quesse would have both
                    the two dots for the following j below and the single dot for the
                    preceding schwa, that is, it would have three dots below. We might
                    just not care and use three dots below anyway, or we might place the
                    two dots for the following j above the tengwa since its position seems
                    to be variable.

                    <<< Based on what concrete tengwar text samples? Yeah, too lazy/tired to go
                    through all of them right now... >>>

                    Greetings,

                    Hisilome
                  • j_mach_wust
                    ... ... have you noticed that these are really... phonemic tehtar mode samples? (though in the case of DTS 36 and 37, it may be discussable) ... Yes, in DTS 23
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jan 2, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dave "Hisilome" wrote:
                      > <<< Hm hoom. Let's see. Orthographic tehta modes (English): DTS 5
                      > (well there's the spelling of "war", but by and large...), DTS 10
                      > (Brogan greetings, second part), DTS 62. Orthographic full modes
                      > (English): DTS 36, 37, 39, 47, 56, 58.

                      ... have you noticed that these are really... phonemic tehtar mode
                      samples? (though in the case of DTS 36 and 37, it may be discussable)

                      > did Tolkien
                      > himself ever use the two underdots to indicate palatalization in any
                      > English tengwar text? I couldn't find any instance, but I thought
                      > maybe you had. I gather, though, that it's really "just"
                      > extrapolated from Quenya (?).

                      Yes, in DTS 23 (full writing) in the word "news". In DTS 39, we see
                      the word "new" transcribed not with the two dots tehta above/below
                      númen, but with noldo. However, this might work for /nj/, but not for
                      /mj/ as in "mute". In that word, we'd still need a j-tehta.

                      The use is basically based on the Quenya modes, that's true. However,
                      the use of a tehta is in accordance with the representation of the
                      combinations of consonant + /w/ with a tehta (in Sindarin and
                      English), and more generally, I think the use of consonant + /w/ or
                      /j/ is just a special case of the use of (any letter) + /w/ or /j/ as
                      seen in the "full writing" diphthongs.

                      That the position of the j-tehta is not fixed is based entirely on the
                      Quenya samples: Within the text, that is to say, in combination with a
                      letter that bears a vowel tehta above (like palatalized Quenya letters
                      necessarily do), the j-tehta is placed below, but in combination with
                      an isolated letter, the preferred position of the j-tehta is above
                      (DTS 65, but I had the impression that this was already known from the
                      description of the tyelpetéma; ah, here's some about that:
                      <http://at.mansbjorkman.net/teng_names.htm#vaia>).

                      ---------------------------
                      j. 'mach' wust
                      http://machhezan.tripod.com
                      ---------------------------
                    • Dave
                      ... From: j_mach_wust To: Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:43 AM Subject: [elfscript] Re: Happy New Year
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jan 2, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...>
                        To: <elfscript@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:43 AM
                        Subject: [elfscript] Re: Happy New Year Elf Script v3

                        Dave "Hisilome" wrote:
                        > <<< Hm hoom. Let's see. Orthographic tehta modes (English): DTS 5
                        > (well there's the spelling of "war", but by and large...), DTS 10
                        > (Brogan greetings, second part), DTS 62. Orthographic full modes
                        > (English): DTS 36, 37, 39, 47, 56, 58.

                        ... have you noticed that these are really... phonemic tehtar mode
                        samples? (though in the case of DTS 36 and 37, it may be discussable)

                        <<<Hmm. Yep. Guess it was too late. :) Like you say, though, DTS 36/37 seem
                        to be "sitting on the fence". Well, but that makes the case even more
                        compelling in favour of orthographic _tehta_ as opposed to orthographic
                        _full_ modes. I still fail to see how you can say then that "I thought that
                        also in the [English]orthographic modes, there are more samples of 'full
                        writing' than of tehtar modes"? Which samples are you referring to?

                        And on a rather unrelated note, what is your reading of the _knnatta_ in DTS
                        41? Why would one see it transcribed as _knyatt_ (Mellonath Daeron DTS
                        Index: where's the final "a"? why a "y" instead of double "n"?) or _knyatta_
                        (McKay's ISS I think, again: where does the "y" come from?)--minor point
                        maybe, just occured strange to me that two sources would both see a "y"
                        where I only see a wavy line, which should indicate a preceding nasal
                        (?)...the DTS Index speculates this could be referring "to the Kenyan leader
                        Yomo Kenyatta". Fair enough, but the transcription of what Tolkien actually
                        wrote should be _knnatta_, should it not? >>>


                        > did Tolkien
                        > himself ever use the two underdots to indicate palatalization in any
                        > English tengwar text? I couldn't find any instance, but I thought
                        > maybe you had. I gather, though, that it's really "just"
                        > extrapolated from Quenya (?).

                        Yes, in DTS 23 (full writing) in the word "news". In DTS 39, we see
                        the word "new" transcribed not with the two dots tehta above/below
                        númen, but with noldo.

                        <<< Ah, that explains it. I was looking through the "Lay of Leithian"
                        passage (DTS 23), but I was searching for _underdots_. Also, overdots are
                        used in various other instances (vowel combinations) as well in that text,
                        so I overlooked this one...My mistake. Thanks! >>>

                        Hisilome
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.