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

Re: [elfscript] Re: Last Name Translation Help?

Expand Messages
  • Melroch 'Aestan
    ... The problem with the W-tehta is that people have used it for _ö_ in the past, before // was invented... One possible solution would be to use the O-tehta
    Message 1 of 25 , Apr 8 3:51 AM
      j_mach_wust skrev:
      > Melroch 'Aestan wrote:
      > ...
      >
      >>for Swedish as well: _y, ä, ö_ become Yanta with U. A, O tehtar,
      >>_å_ becomes Úre with A-tehta, while _aj, ej, oj, uj_ become
      >>Anna with the respective tehtar, and _au/ao, eu_ become Vala
      >>with A, E tehtar. The only real problem with this scheme is
      >>when _j_ follows _y, å, ä, ö_: I have to put a double dot
      >>under the digraph for these sounds. This scheme has the
      >>advantage that you don't have to find a tehta for _å_,
      >>which is a bit pesky. Per Lindberg proposes a doubled
      >>A-tehta, on the analogy that the _å_ sound originates in
      >>a rounded (back) _a_, but that tehta is unwieldy to write
      >>and downright ugly. I prefer the mirrored U-tehta,
      >>(á in the Tengwar Annatar Alt font) but am not wholly
      >>happy with that either...
      >
      >
      > I wasn't thinking of å, that's right. What about using a doubled
      > o-tehta? Or would that be too far off from common sense, or required
      > otherwise? I don't like that doubled a-tehta either, but neither the
      > mirrored u-tehta, which is a Christopher Tolkien tehta if I'm not
      > mistaken. Another possible solution: If you use the left curl (the
      > more usual u-tehta) for _o_, then its modification (the usual tehta
      > for following w) might be fitting for _å_.

      The problem with the W-tehta is that people have used
      it for _ö_ in the past, before // was invented...
      One possible solution would be to use the O-tehta
      for _å_ and a doubled O-tehta -- (( -- for _o_,
      since Swedish _o_ in most cases has the same sound
      as English _oo_, and the same sound as _å_ in the
      remaining cases. Historically speaking Swedish back
      vowels were shifted upward-forward, so that _u_ is /8/,
      _o_ /u/ and _å_ /o/. Most people feel that the
      orthographic vowels _u, o_ should be written with
      the same tehtar as the vowels Romanized _u, o_ in
      Quenya and Sindarin; I'm more phonetically minded,
      but obviously I have to consider the opinion of
      potential readers of what I write, thus the mirrored
      U-tehta -- treating it as available for any third
      back vowel -- is the best alternative, however bad.
      I'm well aware that it is probably CJRT's idiosyncratic
      alternative for -- or even mistake for -- the
      ordinary U-tehta.

      >>If by "more complex vowel systems" you mean ones
      >>that distinguish /9/ from /2/ (/œ/ from /ø/), /O/ from /o/ and
      >>perhaps /E/, /e/, /a/, /A/ all from one another, right?
      >
      >
      > Exactly!
      >
      >
      >>Wouldn't it then make most sense to use the following?
      >>
      >>e = / 2 = // o = O-tehta
      >>
      >>E = \ 9 = \\ O = mirrored U-tehta
      >
      >
      > I've been using the following (or modifications thereof, such as
      > swapping the E grade signs with the i grade signs):
      >
      > e = // 2 = \\ o = (( [read this as doubled o-tehta]
      > E = / 9 = \ O = (
      >
      > You're proposal has the advantage of using the doubling relation for
      > all rounded front vowels, while I propose a more general
      > 'modification' relation. However, it has the disadvantage of requiring
      > the mirrored left curl...

      I agree that your system makes more sense, with its
      systematic use of doubling to indicate "closer vowel",
      but isn't the symmetry broken if you use the doubled
      dot for /y/? I guess you could use the "caret" tehta
      as in "by" (IIRC) on the LOTR title page for /y/, but
      then again that one is confusable with the æ-tehta.

      > Instead of that, it might again be possible
      > to take the left curl and the modified left curl, for instance like this:
      >
      > i = . y = .. u = (
      > e = \ 2 = \\ o = ~
      > E = / 9 = // O = )
      >
      > That's a pretty vowel tehtar system. However, it has the disadvantage
      > that there's no following w tehta available anymore. I'll have to
      > think it over.

      It certainly is more symmetrical. I would use / for /e/
      and \ for /E/ however -- as a mnemonic, since it is _é_
      that is /e/ and _è_ that is /E/ in French. Actually it
      would feel very strange to use your assignments when
      writing French, although I suppose the opposite assignment
      would have to be used when writing Portuguese, for which
      the values of the accents is opposite to French!

      As for the following-W-tehta I think it is often a bit
      of an embarrasment, since it gets messy when combining
      it with vowel tehtar an the nasal stroke. Also when
      writing French you would need a following-/H/-tehta in
      words like _nuit_: better to use Úre for /w/, Yanta
      or Anna for /j/ and Vala for /H/ across the line.
      (Phonetic transcription again as per <http://www.theiling.de/ipa/>!)
      (BTW I wouldn't use Wilya for /w/ when using the Quessetéma
      for velars rather than for labiovelars. Wilya could OTOH
      be used for [@_^], [A_^] or /M\/ if Quessetéma is used for velars.

      >>If you have a system that in addition distinguishes
      >>/I/ from /i/ and /Y/ from /y/ as I believe I've
      >>read that some Alemannic dialects do, you of course
      >>get into a whole new set of problems that I don't
      >>know how to solve however...
      >
      >
      >>From what I know, no Alemannic dialect has a 5 grade vowel system:
      > Those that have distinct /i/ grade and /I/ grade have only a single
      > /e/ grade (Western Switzerland), while those that have distinct /e/
      > grade and /E/ grade have only a single /i/ grade (Eastern
      > Switzerland). The _ä_, distinguished by all dialects, may be
      > considered belonging to the same grade as _a_. Some analyze that _ä_
      > as [a], but I perceive it as a markedly different sound from what I
      > consider to be [a] in French, German, Spanish or Italian (though
      > Italian /a/ may sound similar), so I prefer to analyze it as [æ],
      > which I think is also the more widespread view, even though that sound
      > is more open than normal English [æ]. But then, I've once seen an
      > unusual analysis of German /a/ not as [a], but as [6] (turned 'a'),
      > though I don't remember where, which would allow for Alemannic _ä_ to
      > be analyzed as [a]. I believe IPA is no exact science (but still very
      > useful).

      IPA is not meant to have symbols for all possible sounds.
      That would be quite impossible for vowels, but compare
      CanIPA <http://venus.unive.it/canipa/>! As for English
      /&/ it is usually pharyngealized, i.e. [&_?\], but that's
      *not* part of the definition of the IPA symbol.

      >>See above. FWIW the German _ae, oe, ue_ spellings are every
      >>bit as illogical, given the argument that these sounds were
      >>never diphthongs, not to speak of the entire Dutch -- or
      >>English -- system of spelling vowels! In terms of *spellings*
      >>German _ae, oe_ are analogous to Sindarin _ae, oe_ (especially
      >>given that many instances of _oe_ in Sindarin represent /2/ as
      >>the i-umlaut of *o, which later became /e/, and that even
      >>Sindarin _ae_ became /E/ in some pronunciations e.g.
      >>Aegamloth which became Egalmoth (sic!) in the pronunciation
      >>of Gondor. So either way you have two attested spellings and
      >>one unattested.
      >
      >
      > Certainly. But then, I prefer using tehtar for simple vowels and
      > combinations of tehtar and vala/anna/yanta/úre/stemless calma for
      > diphthongs. And even though we know that _oe_ sometimes represents
      > /2/, we don't know how that kind of _oe_ was written in tengwar.

      That's true -- except that it probably was written
      differently from /oe/! Still my use of "digraphs"
      for umlauts is mainly an aesthetic consideration
      anyway.

      >>for a one-off transcription of
      >>a name I think aesthetical considerations may take the upper
      >>hand. I would e.g. not use Quessetéma for velars in a
      >>non-Quenya name in the middle of a Quenya sentence, but dumb
      >>down the name to Quenya phonemes, and then spell it accordingly,
      >>since I think that is what the Elves would have done.
      >
      >
      > I agree, in the middle of a Quenya sentence, but if the name is
      > isolated, I guess the misreading *Tschünzel is more probable than the
      > misreading *Kwuintsle/*Kwauintsale, since the latter misreading
      > requires the wrong and improbable assumption that it is a Quenya name.
      >
      >
      >>I agree that the _e_ needn't be written in
      >>_-el, -en, -em, -er_ endings. Yiddish spelling
      >>curiously uses _-l, -n_ but _-er_!
      >
      >
      > What do you know! In my dialect, in turn, _der_ is spelled _dr_ by
      > many (not me), but other instances of unstressed weak _-er_ are hardly
      > ever spelled _-r_. And I've never seen _-l_ (there is no _-en_), but
      > this might be because people consider it a typical spelling of Swabian
      > or Austro-Bavarian, just like many (not me!) are beginning to consider
      > the spelling _ä_ for schwa a typical Alemannic spelling, or like _nh_
      > is typical for Portuguese, _ñ_ typical for Spanish and _ny_ typical
      > for Catalonian: Identity through spelling.

      Tell me about it! Historically Swedish switched from
      _æ, ø_ to _ä, ö_ just to be different from Danish, and
      Danes resisted the introduction of _å_ rather than _aa_
      not for practical reasons, but because _å_ was "Swedish"!
      I guess the sensible Norwegian use of _sj_ for /S/ in
      loan-words have no chance in Swedish and Danish for
      the same reason.


      > --------------------
      >
      >
      > Hisilome wrote:
      > ...
      >
      >>Or maybe there are other instances of _umlaut a_ (ae/ä) in Tolkien's
      >>tengwar writings that you were thinking of?
      >>Hm, would the inverted A-tehta in DTS 41 (_clAEdioul&s_) qualify?
      >>Then we could use that for _ä_ (alongside the "normal" A-tehta for
      >>_a_ and the double over-dot for _ü_) in a German mode...?
      >
      >
      > That's the instance I was referring to, and the same tehta also
      > appears in DTS 39 in the words _Spanish_, _nationalist_ and _backing_.
      >
      >
      >>The thing is, I'm not really sure how Latin _ae_ was pronounced
      >>(or how Tolkien pronounced it, for that matter ;))--like Quenya _ai_
      >>(or the sound in English _AIsle_), i.e. as a diphthong, not an
      >>umlaut, or rather more like something between the _a_ in English
      >>_angry_ and the _e_ in English _empty_ (which would pretty much
      >>correspond to German _ä_, wouldn't it).
      >>I seem to have heard both opinions.
      >
      >
      > That depends on what stage of the language you're referring to. In
      > classical Latin, it was [ae], but in postclassical Latin, the sound of
      > _ae_ merged into _e_. I don't remember the time frame. However, there
      > is little doubt that the word seen in DTS 41, whether it be considered
      > a Latin word or an English word, is written according to English
      > pronunciation. This is also substantiated by the use of the typical
      > English diphthong /ou/ and by the unusual tehta for the last vowel
      > instead of the normal u-tehta that would correspond to the Latin
      > pronunciation.
      >
      >

      Also Tolkien obviously used this tehta for Old and
      Modern English /æ/ in addition to and quite possibly
      even before using it for Latin _ae_. The point is
      that however it is precisely pronounced most Germanic
      languages have a sound that speakers perceive as
      "fronted _a_", and for these sounds this tehta
      is obviously the most appropriate. The same goes
      for Finnish, BTW.

      --

      /BP 8^)>
      --
      Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
      A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
      __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
      \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
      / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
      / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
      /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
      Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
      ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
      || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
    • Melroch 'Aestan
      (Phonetic transcriptions are again as per !) ... Actually what happened in Latin was that previously secondary distinctions of
      Message 2 of 25 , Apr 8 4:12 AM
        (Phonetic transcriptions are again
        as per <http://www.theiling.de/ipa/>!)

        j_mach_wust skrev:

        >>but in postclassical Latin, the sound of _ae_ merged into _e_.
        >>
        >>[[[ And this would roughly correspond to _ä_, wouldn't it?
        >
        >
        > No, to _e_. It's identification with _ä_ is an innovation of languages
        > that have _ä_ such as German.
        >

        Actually what happened in Latin was that previously
        secondary distinctions of quality became the primary
        distinctions, while the previously primary distinctions
        of length disappeared, like this:

        i: > i
        i > I
        e: > e
        e > E
        u: > u
        u > U
        o: > o
        o > O
        a: > a
        a > a (note that in _a_ length simply disappeared!)

        What happened to the diphthongs was that _ae_ merged into /E/
        from short _e_ while the more rare _oe_ merged into /e/
        from long _e:_.

        For comparison with Romance languages the lax high vowels
        /I/ and /U/ later merged into the high mid /e/ and /o/,
        and the low mid /E/ and /O/ in most positions diphthongized
        to _ie_ and _uo/ue_. In French this _ue_ later became /2/!

        As for equating Latin _ae_ with _ä_: even if /ae/ > /&/
        didn't happen in Romance, Germans have traditionally read
        Latin written _æ_ as their _ä_, and even Latin _œ_ as their
        _ö_, so you get spellings like _Cäsar, Crösus_. Certainly
        the same was the case with Old English speakers, pronouncing
        Latin _æ_ as their /&/. But this is purely spelling
        pronunciation and has nothing to do with actual historical
        sound change.

        --

        /BP 8^)>
        --
        Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
        A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
        __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
        \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
        / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
        / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
        /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
        Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
        ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
        || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
      • j_mach_wust
        Melroch Aestan wrote: ... People might have, but Tolkien hasn t. This is my simplistic view on these matters. I don t care much for posttolkenian traditions
        Message 3 of 25 , Apr 8 6:42 AM
          Melroch 'Aestan wrote:
          ...
          > The problem with the W-tehta is that people have used
          > it for _ö_ in the past, before // was invented...

          People might have, but Tolkien hasn't. This is my simplistic view on
          these matters. I don't care much for posttolkenian traditions in
          Tolkien's work.

          > I agree that your system makes more sense, with its
          > systematic use of doubling to indicate "closer vowel",
          > but isn't the symmetry broken if you use the doubled
          > dot for /y/?

          There are two kinds of symmetries: The roundedness symmetry between
          unrounded and rounded front vowels; the vowel height symmetry between
          close-mid and open-mid vowels. What we have attested is the use of
          doubling for the roundedness symmetries (i = . y = ..). The problem
          is that only one of these symmetries can be represented by simple
          doubling, while the other has to be expressed by a more general way of
          "modification".

          My original system expresses the vowel height symmetry through
          doubling and the roundedness symmetry through "modification". You're
          right that nonetheless, it expresses one instance of roundedness
          symmetry through doubling. However, I consider doubling just a special
          case of "modification". A doubled dot is another dot modification. So
          I can still consider the system to be consistent. Call this sophistry,
          if you like; it's my way to save the 'modified left curl' for the use
          of following _w_ sign.

          But the expression of the roundedness symmetry through doubling has
          the advantage that it fits better with Tolkien's attested tehtar for
          _i_ and _y_. I mean, describing it as 'doubling' is more exact than
          describing it as 'modification'. Neither description is wrong, but one
          is more precise, so it fits better.

          And now I see an obvious way to express the roundedness symmetry
          through doubling but still preserve the following w tehta:

          i = . y = .. u = )
          e = / 2 = // o = (
          E = \ 9 = \\ O = ((

          It's the same trick again I used above to explain the i-y case: The
          height symmetry is expressed through "modification", and by
          modification I mean any kind of modification (preferrably doubling if
          still available). Also, this very same system could be used for the
          Swedish vowels:

          i = . y = .. u = )
          e = / ö = // o = (
          å = ((

          By the way, for my dialect I rather swap i tehta and e tehta, since it
          does not have two e-grades, but two i-grades:

          i = \ y = \\ u = ))
          I = / Y = // U = )
          e = . 2 = .. o = (

          It's time I get used to these new vowel systems!

          > I would use / for /e/
          > and \ for /E/ however -- as a mnemonic, since it is _é_
          > that is /e/ and _è_ that is /E/ in French. Actually it
          > would feel very strange to use your assignments when
          > writing French,

          You're certainly right! This shows I haven't used this system yet...
          The reason why I chose / for _è_ was that I guess French è-grade
          vowels occur more often than é-grade vowels and so I chose the easier
          signs for è-grade. But I'd say your practical "iconic" argument is
          more important.

          > As for the following-W-tehta I think it is often a bit
          > of an embarrasment, since it gets messy when combining
          > it with vowel tehtar an the nasal stroke.

          I've gotten used to it, and now it's become an indispensable part of
          my tengwar writing. It may get messy, but thats all attested.

          > Also when
          > writing French you would need a following-/H/-tehta in
          > words like _nuit_: better to use Úre for /w/, Yanta
          > or Anna for /j/ and Vala for /H/ across the line.

          I express /H/ as if it were /wj/: Vala with two dots below in initial
          position or both two dots below and the modified left curl above when
          there's a preceding letter. Tehtar crowding, but it works fine.

          > (Phonetic transcription again as per <http://www.theiling.de/ipa/>!)
          > (BTW I wouldn't use Wilya for /w/ when using the Quessetéma
          > for velars rather than for labiovelars. Wilya could OTOH
          > be used for [@_^], [A_^] or /M\/ if Quessetéma is used for velars.

          Or for [?].

          > Also Tolkien obviously used this tehta for Old and
          > Modern English /æ/ in addition to and quite possibly
          > even before using it for Latin _ae_.

          Did he even use it for Latin _ae_ at all? If I'm not mistaken, the
          "Latin" word identified with the inscription of DTS 41 is _gladiolus_,
          not *_glaediolus_. And I think it's misleading to consider the
          spellings of that word to be representations of Latin sounds, since
          it's rather representations of English sounds, even though the word
          might be considered Latin.


          ---------------------------
          j. 'mach' wust
          http://machhezan.tripod.com
          ---------------------------
        • Melroch 'Aestan
          ... I see your point, but while you can confuse people, you can t confuse Tolkien anymore. Besides *he* would probably just have invented new ad_hoc tehtar!
          Message 4 of 25 , Apr 8 11:07 AM
            j_mach_wust skrev:
            > Melroch 'Aestan wrote:
            > ...
            >
            >>The problem with the W-tehta is that people have used
            >>it for _ö_ in the past, before // was invented...
            >
            >
            > People might have, but Tolkien hasn't. This is my simplistic view on
            > these matters. I don't care much for posttolkenian traditions in
            > Tolkien's work.

            I see your point, but while you can confuse people,
            you can't confuse Tolkien anymore. Besides *he*
            would probably just have invented new ad_hoc tehtar!

            [big snip]

            > But the expression of the roundedness symmetry through doubling has
            > the advantage that it fits better with Tolkien's attested tehtar for
            > _i_ and _y_. I mean, describing it as 'doubling' is more exact than
            > describing it as 'modification'. Neither description is wrong, but one
            > is more precise, so it fits better.
            >
            > And now I see an obvious way to express the roundedness symmetry
            > through doubling but still preserve the following w tehta:
            >
            > i = . y = .. u = )
            > e = / 2 = // o = (
            > E = \ 9 = \\ O = ((
            >
            > It's the same trick again I used above to explain the i-y case: The
            > height symmetry is expressed through "modification", and by
            > modification I mean any kind of modification (preferrably doubling if
            > still available).

            Since back vowels tend to get more rounded the
            higher they are it might be a good idea to use
            (( = /o/ and ( = /O/: doubling would then indicate
            relatively greater rounding. That way you can still
            -- tenuously -- preserve consistency in the use of
            the doubling modification.

            > Also, this very same system could be used for the
            > Swedish vowels:
            >
            > i = . y = .. u = )
            > e = / ö = // o = (
            > å = ((

            For the mnemonic reason i said before I'd prefer
            (( for _o_: this letter usually has the same sound
            as English _oo_; moreover /u/ is usually derived
            from historical /o:/, although few beside me would
            be sensitive to that consideration!

            Also should it come to expressing my native dialect
            there would be three extra vowel phonemes to consider.
            I would express these like this:

            i /i/ = . y /y/ = .. u /u\/ = (( o /u/ = ))
            e /e/ = / ö /2/ = // û /8/ = ( å /o/ = )
            ä /E/ = \
            â /a/ = v /ô/ /9-/ = \\ a /A/ = ^

            which I feel would be a more consistent use of doubling,
            by the "more closed--more rounded" criterion.

            (I'm anyway ignoring the fact that long /A/ is [Q:]!
            Length is not phonemic in Swedish, the rule basically
            being that a stressed vowel is long if not followed
            by a consonant cluster or a geminate consonant. Still
            people tend to hear phonetic vowel length better than
            phonetic consonant length, so the question about length
            is a bit vexed both in phonology and in Tengwar writing...)

            > By the way, for my dialect I rather swap i tehta and e tehta, since it
            > does not have two e-grades, but two i-grades:
            >
            > i = \ y = \\ u = ))
            > I = / Y = // U = )
            > e = . 2 = .. o = (

            Yes, that makes sense, although AFAIK the use
            of . for _i_ and / for _e_ is a CJRT usage,
            which you maybe would consider to speak against it.

            If having to distinguish two levels of i-vowels
            I'd prefer using the caret tehta for /Y/ and double
            it (vertically) for /y/ -- and of course . = /I/
            and .. = /i/. There would be the slight problem
            that no font as yet provides for a doubled caret
            tehta, be it vertically or horizontally doubled!
            (At least for me that's a problem: my hands are
            lame and I write atrociously by hand...)

            > It's time I get used to these new vowel systems!
            >
            >
            >>I would use / for /e/
            >>and \ for /E/ however -- as a mnemonic, since it is _é_
            >>that is /e/ and _è_ that is /E/ in French. Actually it
            >>would feel very strange to use your assignments when
            >>writing French,
            >
            >
            > You're certainly right! This shows I haven't used this system yet...
            > The reason why I chose / for _è_ was that I guess French è-grade
            > vowels occur more often than é-grade vowels and so I chose the easier
            > signs for è-grade. But I'd say your practical "iconic" argument is
            > more important.

            Yes. If one would use \ for the vowel indicated
            with acute accent in the Roman orthography one
            would surely write it wrong more often than not!

            For French I would personally prefer a system closer
            to the Roman orthography, i.e. ( for _u_, (( for _ou_,
            ) for all of _o, ô, au, eau_, )) for both of _eu, êu_
            / for _é_ and \ for _è_, but . for _e_ when it is /E/
            and . below when it is [@] or silent, and .. for _i, î_,
            v for _ai, aî, ei_.
            This is probably because I'm unfamiliar and uncomfortable
            with spoken French and simply am not sure about the
            distribution of /2/ vs. /9/ and /o/ vs. /O/.

            >>As for the following-W-tehta I think it is often a bit
            >>of an embarrasment, since it gets messy when combining
            >>it with vowel tehtar an the nasal stroke.
            >
            >
            > I've gotten used to it, and now it's become an indispensable part of
            > my tengwar writing. It may get messy, but thats all attested.

            Yes sure, but then in a language like Icelandic, where older
            /Q/ has become /9/, you almost have to use the W-tehta for
            that phoneme, if you are going to use the same mode for both
            the old and the new language (which anyway is possible only
            because the orthography is archaizing...)

            >>Also when
            >>writing French you would need a following-/H/-tehta in
            >>words like _nuit_: better to use Úre for /w/, Yanta
            >>or Anna for /j/ and Vala for /H/ across the line.
            >
            >
            > I express /H/ as if it were /wj/: Vala with two dots below in initial
            > position or both two dots below and the modified left curl above when
            > there's a preceding letter. Tehtar crowding, but it works fine.

            Oh I see; yes that works too! :-) Do you have any particular
            reason for choosing the analysis /wj/ over /jw/? I guess it
            would matter only word-initially. My hunch is that initial /j/
            is much more common than initial /w/ in French (I can only really
            think of _oui_) but I guess that whatever you use for initial /w/
            with a .. below looks better than Anna with a W-tehta above.
            What do you use for initial /w/ BTW. I guess Úre or Vala.

            >>(Phonetic transcription again as per <http://www.theiling.de/ipa/>!)
            >>(BTW I wouldn't use Wilya for /w/ when using the Quessetéma
            >>for velars rather than for labiovelars. Wilya could OTOH
            >>be used for [@_^], [A_^] or /M\/ if Quessetéma is used for velars.
            >
            >
            > Or for [?].

            Yes, though I would rather use Halla (single rising stem)
            for /?/. Certainly in Arabic Halla for Hamza and
            Wilya for `Ayn!

            >>Also Tolkien obviously used this tehta for Old and
            >>Modern English /æ/ in addition to and quite possibly
            >>even before using it for Latin _ae_.
            >
            >
            > Did he even use it for Latin _ae_ at all? If I'm not mistaken, the
            > "Latin" word identified with the inscription of DTS 41 is _gladiolus_,
            > not *_glaediolus_. And I think it's misleading to consider the
            > spellings of that word to be representations of Latin sounds, since
            > it's rather representations of English sounds, even though the word
            > might be considered Latin.

            I certainly consider _gladiolus_ to be "English" here.
            In _daemonio_ in the same source _ae_ is curiously
            Yanta with /, indicating an English pronunciation of
            Latin, so yes he probably didn't use "v-dots" for
            *Latin* _ae_ only for (Old) English _æ_ -- in which
            case it is certainly appropriate for German, Swedish
            and Finnish _ä_, and for Danish and Norwegian _æ_!

            --

            /BP 8^)>
            --
            Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
            A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
            __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
            \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
            / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
            / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
            /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
            Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
            ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
            || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
          • Melroch 'Aestan
            ... We discussed this on Conlang list not so long ago, and concluded that any prefix or root which begins in a vowel in the orthography begins in a phonemic
            Message 5 of 25 , Apr 8 11:19 AM
              hisilome skrev:

              > [ Ah! I thought the glottal stop in German wasn't "phonemic" at all,
              > but only occuring as an inserted element (in multi-morphemic words)
              > before morphemes that begin with a vowel, as between _e_ and _a_ in
              > _Beamter_. My point being, is it even necessary to represent this in
              > writing at all? And--excuse me for asking what may very well be a
              > stupid question--where does the glottal stop occur at the beginning
              > of a word? Maybe in something like _Sieh an_? Just curious... ]

              We discussed this on Conlang list not so long ago,
              and concluded that any prefix or root which begins
              in a vowel in the orthography begins in a phonemic
              glottal stop -- even when preceded by a consonant,
              thus _unabhängig_ is /'?un?aphENIC/, and _Verein_
              is /fEr'?ain/ though actual realization in rapid
              speach may vary. My German L1 mother anyway insisted
              that _Verein_ be [fE6'?aen], not [fE'raen] as I
              would have it!
              (Transcription as usual CXS: <http://www.theiling.de/ipa/>)

              As for Christian Thalmann's mode it is obviously
              *very* orthographic. I like it for the most part.

              --

              /BP 8^)>
              --
              Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
              A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
              __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
              \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
              / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
              / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
              /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
              Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
              ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
              || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
            • hisilome
              ... [ Well, first of all thanks to you (and Melroch!) for your detailed explanations on Latin _ae_ (and sound changes in the Latin vowel system in general).
              Message 6 of 25 , Apr 8 11:22 AM
                --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...>
                wrote:
                >

                [ Well, first of all thanks to you (and Melroch!) for your detailed
                explanations on Latin _ae_ (and sound changes in the Latin vowel
                system in general).
                Quite apart from that, there's so much in the discussion between you
                guys in the last few posts that it'll take me a while to digest it
                all. :)

                But about the German mode: ]


                > > Have you ever bothered to create an entire mode for High
                > > ("Standard") German? There are at least one or two out there,
                >like the one Danny mentioned, but I'd be curious to see yours
                > > (if it exists).
                >
                > I sure have, and there used to be an online description, but not
                >any more.
                >
                > Let's see... Phonemic mode vowels:
                >
                > i: . ü: .. u: )
                > e: / ö: \ o: (
                >
                > ä: v a: ^

                [ Exactly what I had expected after the last few posts! Except maybe
                for _ö_, but you allow for the possibility of using the double acute
                (in analogy to the spelling of _ü_) further down.

                I'd certainly prefer to have distinct spellings for diphthongs (au,
                ai/ei, eu/äu) and umlauts (ä, ö, ü). Christian Thalmann's mode, which
                Danny mentioned, spells both kinds of sounds with combinations of
                tehta plus uure/yanta, I guess in analogy to the spelling of Quenya
                dipthongs... ]

                > Vowel length is expressed by placing the vowels on a long carrier (I
                > also use a long carrier in the case of ä, even though that's
                >redundant).

                [ That's because _ä_ is always long, I gather. ]


                > The vowel tehtar are placed on the following consonants, but schwa
                is expressed by a single dot under the preceding consonant since many
                > words end with schwa. Consequently, syllabic /l m n r/ are spelled
                > without preceding schwa unless it is clearly pronounced, in words
                >like _kennen, stellen_ (of course, these are no syllabic consonants
                >then).
                >
                > _ö_ might as well be represented with a double acute //.
                >
                > Dipththongs are represented with vala and anna combinations, of
                course.
                >
                >
                > Consonants:
                > Plain general use with extended tyeller for affricates (though I'd
                > admit I prefer calma for /tS/).

                [ Ah, yes, as in the English modes. But then it wouldn't mesh so
                nicely with the spellings of _pf_ and _z_ (/ts/), which I gather
                would be extended parma/tinco in your mode, correct? And _tS_ would
                in fact be extended calma (and, in the fricative tyelle, _sch_ (/S/)
                harma and _ch_ (/x/) hwesta, I presume). ]


                > Óre is used for vocalized _r_. Since I prefer a transcription where
                > vocalisation of _r_ occurs only after long vowels (and of course in
                > syllabic _r_), I don't mark vowel length before óre, so I transcribe
                > _wir_ /vi:r/ [vi:6] with single dot on óre, but no long carrier, and
                > _wirr_ /vIr/ [vIR] with single dot on rómen.

                [ I think this roughly corresponds to Thalmann's mode, though he
                doesn't think it absolutely necessary to make a distinction between
                short and long vowels to begin with, if I understand correctly.
                Otherwise, he also applies the "r-rule", i.e. vocalic _r_ as oore,
                consonantal _r_ as roomen. He quotes the examples _Verein_/_bereit_.

                For double _r_ (as in _wirr_) he proposes to use arda (and alda for
                _ll_, aaze nuquerna for _ss_), but I don't really see the need for
                these unattested (at least in the case of _rr, ll_) spellings. For
                _ll_, for example, why not use the tilde inside lambe. ]


                > Vilya is used for glottal stop, but I don't mark it at the beginning
                > of a word. ... Now that I think about it, halla might also be
                > considered for that purpose...

                [ Ah! I thought the glottal stop in German wasn't "phonemic" at all,
                but only occuring as an inserted element (in multi-morphemic words)
                before morphemes that begin with a vowel, as between _e_ and _a_ in
                _Beamter_. My point being, is it even necessary to represent this in
                writing at all? And--excuse me for asking what may very well be a
                stupid question--where does the glottal stop occur at the beginning
                of a word? Maybe in something like _Sieh an_? Just curious... ]


                > Orthographic mode:
                > Mostly the same.
                >
                > I usually express both the doubling of vowel letters and the
                > combination of vowel letter + 'lengthening _h_' by the long carrier,
                > though the latter might as well be represented by plain hyarmen
                > (indeed, this is more advantageous for words like _Rehe_).

                [ Indeed! Though confusion probably wouldn't be possible in this
                example, since I don't think there's a word called _ree_--but there
                may be other instances where problems would arise? ]


                > I've started to express _ie_ by single dot on stemless calma.
                >
                > The dot below is only used for final _e_.
                >
                > _y_ is represented by the breve accent.

                [ This would be an orthographic spelling indeed, then, as in
                Tolkien's orthographic English modes that also show this usage
                (outside diphthongal combinations such as in _day_ which are spelled
                with anna). I believe _y_ is quite a rare letter in German, but can
                yet stand for a variety of sounds (_Ypsilon, Yak, Yvonne_). ]


                > I prefer to distinguish _v_ and _w_, using ampa for the former, vala
                > for the latter (or the sign for following _w_).

                [ Again, orthographic indeed (and also based on English modes), since
                German _w_ really corresponds to English _v_, while German _v_ is
                either the same as English _v_ OR the same as _f_ (as in _Verein_),
                while English _w_ doesn't even occur in German. ]


                > Silme and esse are used for _s_ and _ss/ß_, not for /s/ and /z/.

                [ Though it would be nice, at least in phonetic spelling, to
                distinguish /s/ (_fest_) and /z/ (_Sand_), and in phonetic spelling
                no extra sign would then be needed for _ss/ß_, since that's
                always /s/, right? ;) ]


                > Double consonant letters are expressed by the bar below, though I
                > sometimes use alda for _ll_ (also because most computer fonts don't
                > allow for a bar to be placed below alda).

                [ You mean, they don't allow for a bar below lambe, is it? Hm, I
                think that was also one of the reasons why Thalmann proposed alda for
                double _l_.
                I'm out of my depth here, but how come a frequently attested spelling
                such as a tilde inside lambe (as it is, for example in Namaarie--I
                don't think Tolkien himself ever actually put the tilde _under_
                lambe) is not available in most computer fonts as you say?
                Remarkable. ]

                Hisilome
              • j_mach_wust
                ... I d rather agree with Hisilome on this point. German is, like English or Swedish, a language that does not have one single standard form and pronunciation,
                Message 7 of 25 , Apr 9 12:22 AM
                  Melroch 'Aestan wrote:
                  >
                  > hisilome skrev:
                  >
                  > > [ Ah! I thought the glottal stop in German wasn't "phonemic" at
                  > > all, but only occuring as an inserted element (in multi-morphemic
                  > > words) before morphemes that begin with a vowel, as between _e_
                  > > and _a_ in _Beamter_. My point being, is it even necessary to
                  > > represent this in writing at all? And--excuse me for asking what
                  > > may very well be a stupid question--where does the glottal stop
                  > > occur at the beginning of a word? Maybe in something like _Sieh
                  > > an_? Just curious... ]
                  >
                  > We discussed this on Conlang list not so long ago,
                  > and concluded that any prefix or root which begins
                  > in a vowel in the orthography begins in a phonemic
                  > glottal stop -- even when preceded by a consonant,
                  > thus _unabh�ngig_ is /'?un?aphENIC/, and _Verein_
                  > is /fEr'?ain/ though actual realization in rapid
                  > speach may vary. My German L1 mother anyway insisted
                  > that _Verein_ be [fE6'?aen], not [fE'raen] as I
                  > would have it!
                  > (Transcription as usual CXS: <http://www.theiling.de/ipa/>)

                  I'd rather agree with Hisilome on this point. German is, like English
                  or Swedish, a language that does not have one single standard form and
                  pronunciation, but different standards varying regionally (unlike
                  English or Swedish, this has only been recognized by linguistics very
                  recently, mainly over the past ten years). The glottal stop seems to
                  be typical for the standard German of Germany, while in Austria and
                  Switzerland it is only seldom realized and many speakers don't use it
                  at all (in standard German, that is, not in the dialect). Therefore,
                  I'd rather not consider it a phoneme.



                  ---------------------------


                  Hisilome wrote:
                  > [ Exactly what I had expected after the last few posts! Except maybe
                  > for _ö_, but you allow for the possibility of using the double acute
                  > (in analogy to the spelling of _ü_) further down.

                  After the last posts with Benct, I'd also recommend the doubled acute,
                  not the grave accent.

                  > _ä_ is always long, I gather. ]

                  Phonemic _ä_ is; orthographic _ä_ may be long or short, but the short
                  _ä_ is homophonous with short _e_.

                  > and _ch_ (/x/) hwesta, I presume). ]

                  Certainly. I forgot to mention I sometimes use hyarmen in the phonemic
                  mode for palatal _ch_. I usually don't put the two dots below, since
                  it can hardly ever be confused with _h_ which occurs only initially.

                  > For double _r_ (as in _wirr_) he proposes to use arda (and alda for
                  > _ll_, aaze nuquerna for _ss_), but I don't really see the need for
                  > these unattested (at least in the case of _rr, ll_) spellings. For
                  > _ll_, for example, why not use the tilde inside lambe. ]

                  Alda is attested for _ll_, though only in full writing, but in
                  'general use' style full writing. I don't remember whether it was in
                  one of the King's Letters or in the Mazarbul inscriptions. Arda,
                  however, is not attested for _rr_.

                  > > I usually express both the doubling of vowel letters and the
                  > > combination of vowel letter + 'lengthening _h_' by the long
                  > > carrier, though the latter might as well be represented by plain
                  > > hyarmen (indeed, this is more advantageous for words like _Rehe_).
                  >
                  > [ Indeed! Though confusion probably wouldn't be possible in this
                  > example, since I don't think there's a word called _ree_--but there
                  > may be other instances where problems would arise? ]

                  It's not because of confusion that hyarmen would be more advantageous
                  in _Rehe_; just try to spell the _eh_ with a long carrier and then put
                  a dot for the final _-e_ below! An isolated short carrier with a dot
                  below would be possible, but I dislike it (and it is not attested). In
                  a phonemic mode, I sometimes use an ephentetic anna in such cases (or
                  vala after _u, o_), which is as far as I know a similar solution to be
                  found as well in Arabic orthography.

                  > [ Though it would be nice, at least in phonetic spelling, to
                  > distinguish /s/ (_fest_) and /z/ (_Sand_), and in phonetic spelling
                  > no extra sign would then be needed for _ss/ß_, since that's
                  > always /s/, right? ;) ]

                  Exactly, and so I do in phonemic modes (even though there are
                  varieties of standard German which in this respect are more similar to
                  the spelling and distinguish /s/ and /ss/, not /z/ and /s/).

                  > > Double consonant letters are expressed by the bar below, though I
                  > > sometimes use alda for _ll_ (also because most computer fonts
                  > > don't allow for a bar to be placed below alda).
                  >
                  > [ You mean, they don't allow for a bar below lambe, is it? Hm, I
                  > think that was also one of the reasons why Thalmann proposed alda
                  > for double _l_.
                  > I'm out of my depth here, but how come a frequently attested
                  > spelling such as a tilde inside lambe (as it is, for example in
                  > Namaarie--I don't think Tolkien himself ever actually put the tilde
                  > _under_ lambe) is not available in most computer fonts as you say?
                  > Remarkable. ]

                  I'm sorry; of course the computer fonts provide a special bar to be
                  placed inside lambe. They don't have a bar that could be placed below
                  alda, but that was totally besides the point, since the possible
                  spellings are either lambe with bar (widely attested) or alda
                  (scarcely attested).


                  ---------------------------
                  j. 'mach' wust
                  http://machhezan.tripod.com
                  ---------------------------
                • j_mach_wust
                  ... That also sounds reasonable. ... That s a pretty system! What is /9-/? ... Is consonant gemination considered to be mere consonant length in Swedish
                  Message 8 of 25 , Apr 9 12:55 AM
                    Melroch 'Aestan wrote:
                    > Since back vowels tend to get more rounded the
                    > higher they are it might be a good idea to use
                    > (( = /o/ and ( = /O/: doubling would then indicate
                    > relatively greater rounding. That way you can still
                    > -- tenuously -- preserve consistency in the use of
                    > the doubling modification.

                    That also sounds reasonable.

                    > Also should it come to expressing my native dialect
                    > there would be three extra vowel phonemes to consider.
                    > I would express these like this:
                    >
                    > i /i/ = . y /y/ = .. u /u\/ = (( o /u/ = ))
                    > e /e/ = / ö /2/ = // û /8/ = ( å /o/ = )
                    > ä /E/ = \
                    > â /a/ = v /ô/ /9-/ = \\ a /A/ = ^

                    That's a pretty system! What is /9-/?

                    > (I'm anyway ignoring the fact that long /A/ is [Q:]!
                    > Length is not phonemic in Swedish, the rule basically
                    > being that a stressed vowel is long if not followed
                    > by a consonant cluster or a geminate consonant. Still
                    > people tend to hear phonetic vowel length better than
                    > phonetic consonant length, so the question about length
                    > is a bit vexed both in phonology and in Tengwar writing...)

                    Is consonant gemination considered to be mere consonant length in
                    Swedish phonology? Traditionally, the Alemannic consonant length is
                    considered to be a secondary feature of the fortis-lenis opposition,
                    but it is debated whether there are other features to that opposition.

                    > AFAIK the use
                    > of . for _i_ and / for _e_ is a CJRT usage,

                    It's attested in DTS 10, after all one of the two major English tehtar
                    mode samples.

                    > If having to distinguish two levels of i-vowels
                    > I'd prefer using the caret tehta for /Y/ and double
                    > it (vertically) for /y/ -- and of course . = /I/
                    > and .. = /i/.

                    I prefer to keep the attested symmetry between unrounded front vowel =
                    . and corresponding rounded front vowel = ..

                    > in a language like Icelandic, where older
                    > /Q/ has become /9/, you almost have to use the W-tehta for
                    > that phoneme, if you are going to use the same mode for both
                    > the old and the new language (which anyway is possible only
                    > because the orthography is archaizing...)

                    Wouldn't the usual (and attested) distinction between a phonemic and
                    an orthographic mode work for Icelandic as well (the latter allowing a
                    fair representation of Old Icelandic) and make the use of the modified
                    left curl dispensable?

                    > Do you have any particular
                    > reason for choosing the analysis /wj/ over /jw/? I guess it
                    > would matter only word-initially. My hunch is that initial /j/
                    > is much more common than initial /w/ in French (I can only really
                    > think of _oui_) but I guess that whatever you use for initial /w/
                    > with a .. below looks better than Anna with a W-tehta above.

                    That's the reason.

                    > What do you use for initial /w/ BTW. I guess Úre or Vala.

                    Úre is not attested for initial /w/ in tehtar modes, but only as a
                    "reading direction inverter" (as in Quenya). So I'd certainly use vala.


                    ---------------------------
                    j. 'mach' wust
                    http://machhezan.tripod.com
                    ---------------------------
                  • Melroch 'Aestan
                    ... Well, traditionally it s identified as an open rounded front vowel -- [9] or even [& ] -- but in my pronunciation it certainly is a low mid rounded
                    Message 9 of 25 , Apr 9 2:18 AM
                      j_mach_wust skrev:

                      >>Also should it come to expressing my native dialect
                      >>there would be three extra vowel phonemes to consider.
                      >>I would express these like this:
                      >>
                      >>i /i/ = . y /y/ = .. u /u\/ = (( o /u/ = ))
                      >>e /e/ = / ö /2/ = // û /8/ = ( å /o/ = )
                      >>ä /E/ = \
                      >>â /a/ = v /ô/ /9-/ = \\ a /A/ = ^
                      >
                      >
                      > That's a pretty system! What is /9-/?

                      Well, traditionally it's identified as an
                      open rounded front vowel -- [9] or even [&\] --
                      but in my pronunciation it certainly is a
                      low mid rounded *central* vowel [3\], so
                      I notated it as a retracted front vowel.
                      I also put it one row too low for some reason...

                      >>(I'm anyway ignoring the fact that long /A/ is [Q:]!
                      >>Length is not phonemic in Swedish, the rule basically
                      >>being that a stressed vowel is long if not followed
                      >>by a consonant cluster or a geminate consonant. Still
                      >>people tend to hear phonetic vowel length better than
                      >>phonetic consonant length, so the question about length
                      >>is a bit vexed both in phonology and in Tengwar writing...)
                      >
                      >
                      > Is consonant gemination considered to be mere consonant length in
                      > Swedish phonology? Traditionally, the Alemannic consonant length is
                      > considered to be a secondary feature of the fortis-lenis opposition,
                      > but it is debated whether there are other features to that opposition.

                      Yes consonant gemination is just consonant length in Swedish.

                      >>AFAIK the use
                      >>of . for _i_ and / for _e_ is a CJRT usage,
                      >
                      >
                      > It's attested in DTS 10, after all one of the two major English tehtar
                      > mode samples.

                      Ah, OK.

                      >>in a language like Icelandic, where older
                      >>/Q/ has become /9/, you almost have to use the W-tehta for
                      >>that phoneme, if you are going to use the same mode for both
                      >>the old and the new language (which anyway is possible only
                      >>because the orthography is archaizing...)
                      >
                      >
                      > Wouldn't the usual (and attested) distinction between a phonemic and
                      > an orthographic mode work for Icelandic as well (the latter allowing a
                      > fair representation of Old Icelandic) and make the use of the modified
                      > left curl dispensable?

                      Sure, but the point is that you would want to be able
                      to use the same orthographic mode both for the old and
                      the new language. It would feel very weird otherwise.
                      Anyway my usage is to represent _v_ with Vala in all
                      positions. I guess anyone who wants can use \ for _ö_
                      and W-tehta for _v_ after consonants, but I don't.

                      >>Do you have any particular
                      >>reason for choosing the analysis /wj/ over /jw/? I guess it
                      >>would matter only word-initially. My hunch is that initial /j/
                      >>is much more common than initial /w/ in French (I can only really
                      >>think of _oui_) but I guess that whatever you use for initial /w/
                      >>with a .. below looks better than Anna with a W-tehta above.
                      >
                      >
                      > That's the reason.
                      >
                      >
                      >>What do you use for initial /w/ BTW. I guess Úre or Vala.
                      >
                      >
                      > Úre is not attested for initial /w/ in tehtar modes, but only as a
                      > "reading direction inverter" (as in Quenya). So I'd certainly use vala.
                      >

                      I thought so.

                      --

                      /BP 8^)>
                      --
                      Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
                      A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
                      __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
                      \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
                      / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
                      / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
                      /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
                      Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
                      ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
                      || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
                    • hisilome
                      ... [ I think your mother s realization corresponds more closely to Thalmann s, who also has the glottal stop in _Verein_. Thalmann says that _Verein_ is
                      Message 10 of 25 , Apr 9 9:34 AM
                        Melroch 'Aestan wrote:

                        > > hisilome skrev:
                        > >
                        >Ah! I thought the glottal stop in German wasn't "phonemic" at
                        >all, but only occuring as an inserted element (in multi-morphemic
                        >words) before morphemes that begin with a vowel, as between _e_ and
                        >_a_ in _Beamter_. My point being, is it even necessary to
                        >represent this in writing at all?

                        >We discussed this on Conlang list not so long ago,
                        >and concluded that any prefix or root which begins
                        >in a vowel in the orthography begins in a phonemic
                        >glottal stop -- even when preceded by a consonant...
                        >My German L1 mother anyway insisted that _Verein_ be [fE6'?aen],
                        >not [fE'raen] as I would have it!

                        and j_mach_wust replied:

                        >The glottal stop seems to be typical for the standard German of
                        >Germany, while in Austria and Switzerland it is only seldom realized
                        >and many speakers don't use it at all (in standard German, that is,
                        >not in the dialect). Therefore, I'd rather not consider it a phoneme.

                        [ I think your mother's realization corresponds more closely to
                        Thalmann's, who also has the glottal stop in _Verein_. Thalmann says
                        that _Verein_ is _Ver-ein_, but _bereit_ is _be-reit_, i.e. in the
                        latter case the _r_ is syllable-initial and thus pronounced
                        differently.
                        While I think that _bereit_ is practically never realized as _ber-
                        eit_, in the case of _Verein_, the realization _Ve-rein_ is also
                        possible (and I think this would correspond to what 'Mach' means when
                        he says that in some variants of High [Standard] German [and I
                        believe not just in Austria and Switzerland, but also in some
                        regions/speakers in Germany, espcially in the south] the glottal stop
                        would not be realized).
                        Thalmann doesn't introduce a separate sign for the glottal stop.
                        Where _r_ is involved, he simply uses oore for syllable-final _r_
                        (regardless of whether it's followed by a vowel/glottal stop or a
                        consonant), and roomen for syllable-initial/medial _r_, which is
                        always pre-vocalic (syllable-medial for example in _Christian_). ]


                        Melroch 'Aestan wrote:

                        >As for Christian Thalmann's mode it is obviously
                        >*very* orthographic. I like it for the most part.

                        [ Yes, I agree it is! And I don't think there's a problem with that
                        (as you may remember, I'm actually quite partial to orthographic
                        modes, no matter what the language). The only thing I'm really not so
                        happy with (as I said) is that this mode uses basically the same
                        method for representing the diphthongs and the umlauts. I think since
                        umlauts are simple vowels, they should be spelled as such (and not
                        like diphthongs) even in orthographic writing, which is why I prefer
                        the solutions with inverted A-tehta/double acute/double over-dot for
                        _ä, ö, ü_. ]

                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        j_mach_wust wrote:

                        > > and _ch_ (/x/) hwesta, I presume).
                        >
                        >Certainly. I forgot to mention I sometimes use hyarmen in the
                        >phonemic mode for palatal _ch_. I usually don't put the two dots
                        >below, since it can hardly ever be confused with _h_ which occurs
                        >only initially.

                        [ Hm. How about words like _gehabt, gehoben, verhören_, where the _h_
                        is certainly pronounced (and not a sign of vowel lengthening)? But
                        even then, confusion would probably rarely arise... ]


                        > Alda is attested for _ll_, though only in full writing, but in
                        > 'general use' style full writing. I don't remember whether it was in
                        > one of the King's Letters or in the Mazarbul inscriptions.

                        [ Ah, you're of course right: both DTS 13 (Mazarbul) in _Dimrill,
                        shall_ (and, mistakenly, in the first occurrence of _hold_) and all
                        three copies of the King's Letter have it (in _all_). Hm, so only
                        arda for _rr_ is unattested...could warm up to this. Although in
                        your proposal one wouldn't need it, since _rr_ occurs only after
                        short vowels (=not vocalized) and is then spelled with roomen (as
                        opposed to oore) anyway. ]


                        > > > I usually express both the doubling of vowel letters and the
                        > > > combination of vowel letter + 'lengthening _h_' by the long
                        > > > carrier, though the latter might as well be represented by plain
                        > > > hyarmen (indeed, this is more advantageous for words like
                        _Rehe_).
                        > >
                        > > Indeed! Though confusion probably wouldn't be possible in this
                        > > example, since I don't think there's a word called _ree_...

                        >It's not because of confusion that hyarmen would be more
                        >advantageous in _Rehe_; just try to spell the _eh_ with a long
                        >carrier and then put a dot for the final _-e_ below! An isolated
                        >short carrier with a dot below would be possible, but I dislike it
                        (and it is not attested). In a phonemic mode, I sometimes use an
                        >ephentetic anna in such cases (or vala after _u, o_), which is as
                        >far as I know a similar solution to be found as well in Arabic
                        >orthography.

                        [ So, anna to lengthen _a, e, i_, and vala to lengthen _u, o_, do I
                        understand you correctly here? Is that attested somewhere in
                        Tolkien's modes (don't know any Arabic I'm afraid :()? Also, why call
                        it "epenthetic"? Isn't that sort of an "added" sound in spoken
                        language, while here we're dealing with an added _letter_ to express
                        vowel length in writing? I'm no expert, mind you, but curious. ]


                        > > Though it would be nice, at least in phonetic spelling, to
                        > > distinguish /s/ (_fest_) and /z/ (_Sand_), and in phonetic
                        spelling no extra sign would then be needed for _ss/ß_, since that's
                        > > always /s/, right?
                        >
                        >Exactly, and so I do in phonemic modes (even though there are
                        >varieties of standard German which in this respect are more similar
                        >to the spelling and distinguish /s/ and /ss/, not /z/ and /s/).

                        [ That's interesting! Even though this is drifting OT, I'd be curious
                        to know which varieties these are (geographically speaking)? And what
                        would this mean concretely: that one would pronounce the _s_ in
                        _Sand_ and _fest_ identically (and this would have to be an unvoiced
                        _s_ in both cases, right?), while discerning, say, _dass_
                        (conjunction, i.e. _daß_) and _das_ (article) in pronuncation? Would
                        the article then have a voiced _s_ (/z/)...? Sorry if I'm a bit slow
                        here. :) ]

                        Hisilome
                      • j_mach_wust
                        ... Especially since even a basic knowledge of German will be sufficient to recognize that _ge_ and _ver_ are typical prefixes. I d also spell _ge_ with a dot
                        Message 11 of 25 , Apr 9 3:12 PM
                          Hisilome wrote:
                          > >I sometimes use hyarmen in the
                          > >phonemic mode for palatal _ch_. I usually don't put the two dots
                          > >below, since it can hardly ever be confused with _h_ which occurs
                          > >only initially.
                          >
                          > [ Hm. How about words like _gehabt, gehoben, verh�ren_, where the
                          > _h_ is certainly pronounced (and not a sign of vowel lengthening)?
                          > But even then, confusion would probably rarely arise... ]

                          Especially since even a basic knowledge of German will be sufficient
                          to recognize that _ge_ and _ver_ are typical prefixes. I'd also spell
                          _ge_ with a dot below ungwe and _ver_ with formen + óre, so it'd be
                          even more obvious that it's prefixes.

                          > so only
                          > arda for _rr_ is unattested...could warm up to this. Although in
                          > your proposal one wouldn't need it, since _rr_ occurs only after
                          > short vowels (=not vocalized) and is then spelled with roomen (as
                          > opposed to oore) anyway. ]

                          In the orthographic proposal of mine, however, a doubled _rr_ would be
                          necessary, but I haven't ever thought much about it. I think I
                          wouldn't use arda because it isn't attested at all. Maybe I'd use óre
                          with a bar below, since a bar below rómen would be awkward to me and
                          since a doubled _rr_ in one way is always at the end of a syllable
                          (but also at the beginning of the next syllable).

                          > [ So, anna to lengthen _a, e, i_, and vala to lengthen _u, o_, do I
                          > understand you correctly here? Is that attested somewhere in
                          > Tolkien's modes (don't know any Arabic I'm afraid :()? Also, why
                          > call it "epenthetic"? Isn't that sort of an "added" sound in spoken
                          > language, while here we're dealing with an added _letter_ to express
                          > vowel length in writing? I'm no expert, mind you, but curious. ]

                          I wouldn't use anna and vala to lengthen the vowels. I'd lengthen them
                          in the normal way with the long carrier. I'd only use vala/anna as a
                          kind of "carrier" for a following schwa, because I'd rather not write
                          a short carrier with a dot below. And I've called it "epenthetic"
                          because the reason why I'd use these letters is the assumption that
                          _Rehe_ /re:@/ is really pronounced [re:j@], with a epenthetic [j] in
                          the hiatus.

                          > >(even though there are
                          > >varieties of standard German which in this respect are more similar
                          > >to the spelling and distinguish /s/ and /ss/, not /z/ and /s/).
                          >
                          > [ That's interesting! Even though this is drifting OT, I'd be
                          > curious to know which varieties these are (geographically speaking)?
                          > And what would this mean concretely: that one would pronounce the
                          > _s_ in _Sand_ and _fest_ identically (and this would have to be an
                          > unvoiced _s_ in both cases, right?), while discerning, say, _dass_
                          > (conjunction, i.e. _da�_) and _das_ (article) in pronuncation? Would
                          > the article then have a voiced _s_ (/z/)...? Sorry if I'm a bit slow
                          > here. :) ]

                          At least all of Austro-Bavarian and Alemannic-Swabian dialects are
                          said not to have any voiced obstruents at all (except for /v/, but
                          that's a special case), and neither have the varieties of standard
                          German in the same regions, that is to say, in much of Southern
                          Germany and in all of Switzerland and Austria (except for a border
                          region with Slovenia).

                          Since most of these regions, as far as I know, have terminal devoicing
                          (note that "devoicing" must not be understood literally in this case,
                          since there is no voice in the first place, but the term is still
                          used; it means just that the opposition is neutralized at the ends of
                          words), the opposition between _s_ and _ss_ exists only within a word
                          between voiced sounds, for instance in _reisen_ vs. _reissen_.

                          It is debated what makes the difference. The traditional point of view
                          is that the main feature of that opposition is a fortis-lenis
                          distinction, though others say the main feature is a length
                          distinction. If I remember correctly, the length difference can be
                          measured, but the force difference can't, as far as I know. The
                          traditional way of transcribing the opposition is with [s] vs. [z_0]
                          (voiceless [z]). This may seem strange to someone who supposes that
                          it's the voice that differentiates [s] from [z], and that a voiceless
                          [z] would be the same as an [s]; in the traditional use in German
                          linguistics, however, there's more to that differentiation than just
                          voice, but as I said, the nature of that "more" is debated.

                          I don't know whether the initial opposition heard in Germany between
                          _Sex_ /sEks/ 'sex' (an English loanword) and _sechs_ /zEks/ 'six' is
                          also made in areas that don't have voiced [z]. I'd say it would be
                          perfectly possible, but I could also figure that this initial
                          distinction is only made in areas that have voiced [z] since in
                          Switzerland, at least, it is not made. At least in Switzerland, on the
                          other hand, there is no terminal devoicing, so pairs like _Reis_
                          'rice' and _reiss_ 'rip (imperative singular)' are not homophonous.
                          Nonetheless, 'das' and 'dass' are perfectly homophonous, just like
                          they are etymologically identical. Their differenciation is just
                          made-up (surely an invention of cruel teachers to annoy their students).


                          ---------------------------
                          j. 'mach' wust
                          http://machhezan.tripod.com
                          ---------------------------
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.