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

Happy New Year Elf Script v5

Expand Messages
  • David J. Finnamore
    After finishing both orthographic and phonemic versions, I liked the latter a lot better. It s easier to read and just feels and looks better. The
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      After finishing both orthographic and phonemic versions, I liked the
      latter a lot better. It's easier to read and just feels and looks
      better. The orthographic one is awkward.

      I couldn't find any way in the Parmait font to connect the indefinite
      article to the next word the way Tolkien did it, so I just flattened
      the text painted it in.

      I'm unsure what to do with the word "us," and the whole thing is
      probably still far from perfect. Hopefully it shows that I'm learning
      and that I'm serious about it.

      David "Daeron" Finnamore
      http://www.elvenminstrel.com
    • j_mach_wust
      ... Why is that? From what you sais, I thought you preferred orthographic transcriptions... Anyway, I ve also created an orthographic transcription, which
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        David "Daeron" Finnamore wrote:
        >
        > After finishing both orthographic and phonemic versions, I liked the
        > latter a lot better. It's easier to read and just feels and looks
        > better. The orthographic one is awkward.

        Why is that? From what you sais, I thought you preferred orthographic
        transcriptions... Anyway, I've also created an orthographic
        transcription, which after all is easier to make since they're better
        attested:

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

        > I couldn't find any way in the Parmait font to connect the
        > indefinite article to the next word the way Tolkien did it, so I
        > just flattened the text painted it in.

        I think character intended for that purpose can be found in the
        parmaite alt font, but I'm not sure right now. Anyway, we have no
        sample of how Tolkien transcribed an indefinite article in a phonemic
        tehtar mode, and that "connected" carrier is taken from the well
        attested full modes where it is used both for the indefinite article
        and for the a- prefix (as in "aright"). It would also be possible to
        transcribe both with a grave accent tehta (which is also in parmaite
        alt, I guess).

        > I'm unsure what to do with the word "us,"

        So am I. Other possibilities would be the use of the same "connected"
        carrier as the one used for the indefinite article; or the use of the
        grave accent tehta (which I've used in my proposition). We don't know
        how Tolkien would have done it, so any transcription into a phonemic
        tehtar mode with any schwa or bug vowels is highly speculative, and
        it's much safer to use either an orthographic tehtar mode or a
        phonemic "full writing".


        Some other comments on you transcription (that's strange: most
        comments are about u/w-sounds!-) :

        "we": I'd recommend not to use that w-sign (which I say is an inverted
        lambe but others say we can't say), because it's only used in the
        early phonemic "full writing"; I'd rather use plain vala.

        "how", "our": Your transcription of the /aw/ diphthong seems to be
        taken from the phonemic "full writing"; I'd rather use the a-tehta on
        vala as corresponds to a tehtar mode.

        "to": I wouldn't use a long carrier since this word is unstressed.

        "Eru": I'd rather use a short carrier since this has a short /u/.

        "illuminate": I wouldn't use a bar below lambe since English
        pronunciation doesn't have long consonants (except over word
        boundaries, that is); however, I'd put the /u/ on a long carrier (or
        double it) since both http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ and
        http://www.webster.com/ agree that this word is stressed on that u and
        that this u is pronounced as the u of "flute" (or the oo of "noon"),
        not like u of "put" (however, this might be different in your variety
        of English).

        "Ilúvatar": Here I'd also use a long carrier with the ú because it's long.

        "year": There's no need for a separate carrier; an i-tehta placed on
        óre is always pronounced like the word "ear" (in the word "irritate",
        where the sequence of i and r has a different pronunciation, you'd put
        the i-tehta onto rómen, without bar below).

        But that's already a very fine transcription, you're a good learner!

        ---------------------------
        j. 'mach' wust
        http://machhezan.tripod.com
        ---------------------------
      • David J. Finnamore
        Thanks so much for the feedback, mach! This subject is so delightfully complex. David Daeron Finnamore http://www.elvenminstrel.com
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks so much for the feedback, mach! This subject is so
          delightfully complex.

          David "Daeron" Finnamore
          http://www.elvenminstrel.com
        • David J. Finnamore
          Oh, I forgot to answer your Q. ... That was theory. :-) After putting both into practice, I just didn t like the look or feel of the orthographic one. While
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Oh, I forgot to answer your Q.

            --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@y...> wrote:
            >
            > David "Daeron" Finnamore wrote:
            > >
            > > After finishing both orthographic and phonemic versions, I liked the
            > > latter a lot better. It's easier to read and just feels and looks
            > > better. The orthographic one is awkward.
            >
            > Why is that? From what you sais, I thought you preferred orthographic
            > transcriptions.

            That was theory. :-) After putting both into practice, I just didn't
            like the look or feel of the orthographic one. While the idea of
            orthographic English appealed more to me intellectually, the actual
            instance of phonemic English appealed more to my aesthetic
            sensibilities. So often true with things of this nature.

            You were right, of course, about some things being like early full
            writing. Since we don't have attested examples for much of what I was
            trying to do, and since the only really long example of Tolkien's
            English writing available to me at present is the page from the Lay of
            Leithien in HoMe 3, I fell back on it when in doubt. I got really
            fascinated with it. I wish I could see an actual size copy. It's very
            grainy in my Del Rey edition.

            David "Daeron" Finnamore
            http://www.elvenminstrel.com
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.