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

Re: [elfscript] Return of the ElfScribes

Expand Messages
  • Angasule
    ... Yes indeed! The mode of Beleriand looks very good, without a doubt! it s non Tolkien full modes I generally don t like as much as their tengwar
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 14, 2000
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Mans Bjorkman wrote:
      >
      > Actually, I think the full modes look more "monumental" than the
      > tehta-modes, and so are appropriate on some occations, whereas the tehta
      > modes are in general more "elegant". Having said that, if you want to
      > write in classical Sindarin the mode of Beleriand is the natural choice.
      > (Some have called the Sindarin tehta-mode "classical", but our only
      > sample of this mode comes from early Fourth Age -- Aragorn's letter to
      > Sam -- at which time the language was hardly "classical"!)
      Yes indeed! The mode of Beleriand looks very good, without a doubt!
      it's non Tolkien full modes I generally don't like as much as their
      tengwar counterparts.

      > Well, both are crescent-shaped, but the zero is mirrored compared to the
      > 'a'. In our sole example it is also more narrow than the 'a', but that
      > may be simple graphemic variation.
      Oh, well, hadn't had a look at neither for a while, anyway, we'll one
      day know Tolkien's name for it, hopefully!!

      > > I know some people are working on the sarati (in fact, I talked with
      > > one of them less than a minute ago!), I think this person in particular
      > > is adapting them to write Spanish (since he was wondering about the
      > > spanish ñ!).
      >
      > Be sure to report his progress on this list!
      I will!

      > The only tables with Cirth -- as Tolkien finally conceived them -- are
      > in The Return of the King, appendix E. The tables in _TI_ shows some
      > earlier sketches on the same system, but they are very dissimilar from
      > the final result.
      Ah, I always found it rather confusing there, maybe I should return to
      it, I unfortunately lent my copy of The Lord of the Rings (yes, stupid
      thing to do, I know!!!), so I'll have to wait.

      > Appendix E claims that "Among the Eldar the Alphabet of Daeron did not
      > develop true cursive forms", but leaves it open if it did among the
      > Dwarves of Moria. Somewhere (I don't have the reference at hand) it says
      > that Certhas Daeron was used to record the wars with Morgoth, most
      > likely in the Grey Annals.
      Yes, probably the dwarves, then, although I don't recall the book of
      Mazarbul as having cursive certar? (I only gave a short look to it, with
      orcs and the balrog behind me! [aka store clerks closing down!])

      > There is no Swedish Tolkien Society, but several regional societies.
      > Gothenburg has a society called Mithlond, the society of Malmö is called
      > Angmar, Uppsala has Cerin Erain (actually a fief of the Forodrim) etc.
      I'd be interested in the way they work (statutes and all), I'll look
      for them next time I'm online.
      Eru is Lord and Tolkien is his prophet (funny phrase someone said last
      weekend :) ).
      Angasule
    • Lisa Star
      ... The cirth in the TI are closely connected to the languages given in the Etymologies, among them, the Ilkorin dialects. Since I especially like those
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 14, 2000
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        >From: Mans Bjorkman <mansb@...>

        > > The Treason of Isengard, [snip]

        >The only tables with Cirth -- as Tolkien finally conceived them -- are
        >in The Return of the King, appendix E. The tables in _TI_ shows some
        >earlier sketches on the same system, but they are very dissimilar from
        >the final result.

        The cirth in the TI are closely connected to the languages given in the
        Etymologies, among them, the Ilkorin dialects. Since I especially like
        those languages, I prefer to use the alphabets that Tolkien had in mind for
        them. In any case, I like different modes and variations, as I do for the
        European language alphabets which I have also studied. It's much more fun
        to produce the calligraphy when there are lots of choices--and Tolkien
        provides lots of alphabets! I think that no two descriptions or
        inscriptions are ever the same which makes it a lot of fun.


        ** Lisa Star
        ** LisaStar@...
        ** http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9902

        _________________________________________________________________________
        Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

        Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
        http://profiles.msn.com
      • Mans Bjorkman
        ... Lisa Star has pointed out that she uses the runes in TI for the languages in Tolkien s creation that are contemporary with them. That is fine, of course,
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 18, 2000
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Angasule wrote (>) in reply to me (> >):

          > > The only tables with Cirth -- as Tolkien finally conceived them -- are
          > > in The Return of the King, appendix E. The tables in _TI_ shows some
          > > earlier sketches on the same system, but they are very dissimilar from
          > > the final result.
          > Ah, I always found it rather confusing there, maybe I should return to
          > it, I unfortunately lent my copy of The Lord of the Rings (yes, stupid
          > thing to do, I know!!!), so I'll have to wait.

          Lisa Star has pointed out that she uses the runes in TI for the
          languages in Tolkien's creation that are contemporary with them. That is
          fine, of course, and illustrates that one can perceive the subcreation
          in two different ways: either as multiple layers of writings from
          different periods of Tolkien's life, where each layer is worth studying
          in its own right; or as a single, unified body of divergent texts --
          where newer texts contradict with older ones, they are usually closer to
          the "truth". Both views must be held equally valid, though I confess
          myself to the latter.


          > > Appendix E claims that "Among the Eldar the Alphabet of Daeron did not
          > > develop true cursive forms", but leaves it open if it did among the
          > > Dwarves of Moria. Somewhere (I don't have the reference at hand) it says
          > > that Certhas Daeron was used to record the wars with Morgoth, most
          > > likely in the Grey Annals.

          Here is the reference. _The War of the Jewels_, "The Grey Annals" §31:
          "Of the long years of peace that followed after the coming of Denethor
          there is little tale; for though in this time Dairon the minstrel, it is
          said, who was the chief loremaster of the kingdom of Thingol, deviced
          his Runes*, [_added later in margin_: Cirth] they were little used by
          the Sindar for the keeping of records, until the days of the War [...]"

          The footnote reads: "* These, it is said, he contrived first ere the
          building of Menegroth, and after bettered them. The Naugrim, indeed,
          that came to Thingol learned the Runes of Dairon, and were well-pleased
          with the device, esteeming Dairon's skill higher than did the Sindar,
          his own folk; and by the Naugrim they [_later_ > the Cirth] were taken
          east over the mountains and passed into the knowledge of many peoples."


          > Yes, probably the dwarves, then, although I don't recall the book of
          > Mazarbul as having cursive certar? (I only gave a short look to it, with
          > orcs and the balrog behind me! [aka store clerks closing down!])

          Correct; the Book of Mazarbul contains regular, "straight" runes. The
          only "cursive" runes of Tolkien I'm aware of are in the tables in TI, in
          fact.

          I assume it was _Pictures by J.R.R. Tolkien_ you looked in? If so, you
          really should get hold of it, since it is no longer in print! (_Artist
          and Illustrator_ only contains one of the pages, and a sketch of
          another.)


          > > There is no Swedish Tolkien Society, but several regional societies.
          > > Gothenburg has a society called Mithlond, the society of Malmö is called
          > > Angmar, Uppsala has Cerin Erain (actually a fief of the Forodrim) etc.
          > I'd be interested in the way they work (statutes and all), I'll look
          > for them next time I'm online.

          They all linked from the homepage of the Forodrim
          (http://www.forodrim.org), though Cerin Erain has no home page.

          The reason for my haste last time was that I was on my way to a
          fall-celebration in Mithlond (Gothenburg is a six-hour drive away from
          Stockholm). These last four days I have feasted together with people
          from all the societies mentioned above, as well as from the Danish
          society Bri (danicised form of Bree) and the Norwegian Arthedain. All in
          all, about 110 people. It was great fun!


          Suilaid an Seryn Tîw a Cirth,
          Måns


          --
          Måns Björkman "Mun þu mik!
          Störtloppsvägen 8, III Man þik.
          SE-129 46 Hägersten Un þu mer!
          Sweden An þer."
        • Lisa Star
          ... **You sound as if you are giving me permission. That s a little presumptious of you! ... **But neither view is the one that I hold, or am working from.
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 18, 2000
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            >Mans Bjorkman <mansb@...> wrote:

            >Lisa Star has pointed out that she uses the runes in TI for the
            >languages in Tolkien's creation that are contemporary with them. That is
            >fine, of course,

            **You sound as if you are giving me permission. That's a little
            presumptious of you!

            >and illustrates that one can perceive the subcreation
            >in two different ways: either as multiple layers of writings from
            >different periods of Tolkien's life, where each layer is worth studying
            >in its own right; or as a single, unified body of divergent texts --
            >where newer texts contradict with older ones, they are usually closer to
            >the "truth". Both views must be held equally valid, though I confess
            >myself to the latter.

            **But neither view is the one that I hold, or am working from. There are
            more views than you know of, obviously.

            **The scheme that I use is that Tolkien studied during his lifetime many
            texts from many different eras of Middle-earth. The material in Etymologies
            and most of the cirth charts in TI are from the First Age, and so they
            accurately reflect the languages and alphabets in use in the First Age. Of
            course they will show differences from the languages and alphabets used in
            the much later Third Age. In addition, Tolkien's understanding of the
            material grew the longer he studied it, so later translations and language
            studies are more accurate than earlier ones. That doesn't mean that the
            earlier ones need to be discarded--they are the best source we have on
            earlier periods in Middle-earth.

            **There is the additional problem that even some of the later material is
            contradictory or can't be made to fit, so one has to deal with it somehow.
            That's part of the fun for me, but I don't think there will ever be--or that
            there ever was--one perfect conception of Middle-earth, or specifically its
            languages and alphabets, so I don't think it makes sense to argue that there
            is one perfect interpretation.

            **Of course, I give you permission to do whatever you like, too :-)

            ** Lisa Star
            ** LisaStar@...
            ** http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9902

            _________________________________________________________________________
            Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

            Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
            http://profiles.msn.com
          • Mans Bjorkman
            ... I apologize for causing this misunderstanding. I meant nothing of the kind! My intention was merely to point out that one can view Tolkien s material in
            Message 5 of 8 , Sep 18, 2000
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Lisa Star wrote:

              > >Mans Bjorkman <mansb@...> wrote:
              >
              > >Lisa Star has pointed out that she uses the runes in TI for the
              > >languages in Tolkien's creation that are contemporary with them. That is
              > >fine, of course,
              >
              > **You sound as if you are giving me permission. That's a little
              > presumptious of you!

              I apologize for causing this misunderstanding. I meant nothing of the
              kind! My intention was merely to point out that one can view Tolkien's
              material in many different ways (not just two, as you rightly point
              out).


              > >and illustrates that one can perceive the subcreation
              > >in two different ways: either as multiple layers of writings from
              > >different periods of Tolkien's life, where each layer is worth studying
              > >in its own right; or as a single, unified body of divergent texts --
              > >where newer texts contradict with older ones, they are usually closer to
              > >the "truth". Both views must be held equally valid, though I confess
              > >myself to the latter.
              >
              > **But neither view is the one that I hold, or am working from. There are
              > more views than you know of, obviously.

              Obviously. I have never investigated the views held by all my fellow
              Tolkienites (not even the ones I know of).


              > **The scheme that I use is that Tolkien studied during his lifetime many
              > texts from many different eras of Middle-earth. The material in Etymologies
              > and most of the cirth charts in TI are from the First Age, and so they
              > accurately reflect the languages and alphabets in use in the First Age. Of
              > course they will show differences from the languages and alphabets used in
              > the much later Third Age. In addition, Tolkien's understanding of the
              > material grew the longer he studied it, so later translations and language
              > studies are more accurate than earlier ones. That doesn't mean that the
              > earlier ones need to be discarded--they are the best source we have on
              > earlier periods in Middle-earth.

              I agree with you that 1) Tolkien's understanding of the texts grew as he
              studied them, and 2) the earlier material should not be discarded. I do
              *not* agree the Etymologies and the "Appendix on Runes", as they stand,
              are more reliable sources on the First Age than later writings,
              specifically _The Lord of the Rings_!


              > **There is the additional problem that even some of the later material is
              > contradictory or can't be made to fit, so one has to deal with it somehow.
              > That's part of the fun for me, but I don't think there will ever be--or that
              > there ever was--one perfect conception of Middle-earth, or specifically its
              > languages and alphabets, so I don't think it makes sense to argue that there
              > is one perfect interpretation.

              So your view is that there are several equally correct conceptions of
              Middle-earth -- divided, perhaps, by the changes that Tolkien made over
              time? So that in one conception there are "Ilkorin" elves that use the
              "Runes of Beleriand" of AR, in another there are Sindar who use the
              Certhas Daeron as described in LR? I think this, in essence, summarizes
              the view I so bluntly ascribed to you.

              I agree there is no single perfect conception of Arda -- after all,
              Tolkien's sources were written during a period of several thousand years
              -- but I beleive the later discoveries of the Author to be usually more
              accurate than the earlier, thereby superceding them. Sometimes there is
              indeed a choice between two late contradictory sources, but never
              between one late source and one early. And there's my view in a
              nutshell.


              > **Of course, I give you permission to do whatever you like, too :-)

              Thank you. I hope, then, that I have not insulted you beyond redemption.

              Regards,
              Måns


              --
              Måns Björkman "Mun þu mik!
              Störtloppsvägen 8, III Man þik.
              SE-129 46 Hägersten Un þu mer!
              Sweden An þer."
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.