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

Re: Happy New Year Elf Script v3

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Dec 31, 2005
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 10 , Jan 1, 2006
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 10 , Jan 1, 2006
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 10 , Jan 1, 2006
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 10 , Jan 2, 2006
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 10 , Jan 2, 2006
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 10 , Jan 2, 2006
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 10 , Jan 2, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 10 , Jan 2, 2006
                    View Source
                    • 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.