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

Getting a Tattoo in Elvish

Expand Messages
  • elmac526
    Hi everyone, I just found this group, and was wondering if anyone would mind helping me. I want to get a tattoo in Elvish, and for the past couple of days have
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi everyone, I just found this group, and was wondering if anyone would
      mind helping me. I want to get a tattoo in Elvish, and for the past
      couple of days have been researching Tengwar.

      The phrase I want in Tengwar is "Quod me nutrit me destruit" which I
      attempted to translate into Quenya but found very difficult so now I am
      just trying to do it in English. Because the phrase is in Latin,
      phonetically I figured it would be something like "Kwod mai nutrit mai
      destruit." I have come up with the following:

      http://www.geocities.com/elmac526/tat.JPG

      Is this correct? I want to make sure before I do anything permanent.
      Thank you!
    • Palatinus
      It seems to be an acceptable (to me) way to spell Latin with tengwar... I know there have been attempts before, I don t know if you have consulted them. A
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 8, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        It seems to be an acceptable (to me) way to spell Latin with tengwar... I know there have been attempts before, I don't know if you have consulted them. A mistake I found is that you wrote 'me' as 'maa'

        ----- Original Message ----
        From: elmac526 <elmac526@...>
        To: elfscript@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, January 8, 2007 1:02:56 AM
        Subject: [elfscript] Getting a Tattoo in Elvish













        Hi everyone, I just found this group, and was wondering if anyone would

        mind helping me. I want to get a tattoo in Elvish, and for the past

        couple of days have been researching Tengwar.



        The phrase I want in Tengwar is "Quod me nutrit me destruit" which I

        attempted to translate into Quenya but found very difficult so now I am

        just trying to do it in English. Because the phrase is in Latin,

        phonetically I figured it would be something like "Kwod mai nutrit mai

        destruit." I have come up with the following:



        http://www.geocitie s.com/elmac526/ tat.JPG



        Is this correct? I want to make sure before I do anything permanent.

        Thank you!














        <!--

        #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
        #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
        #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
        #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
        #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
        #ygrp-text{
        font-family:Georgia;
        }
        #ygrp-text p{
        margin:0 0 1em 0;
        }
        #ygrp-tpmsgs{
        font-family:Arial;
        clear:both;
        }
        #ygrp-vitnav{
        padding-top:10px;
        font-family:Verdana;
        font-size:77%;
        margin:0;
        }
        #ygrp-vitnav a{
        padding:0 1px;
        }
        #ygrp-actbar{
        clear:both;
        margin:25px 0;
        white-space:nowrap;
        color:#666;
        text-align:right;
        }
        #ygrp-actbar .left{
        float:left;
        white-space:nowrap;
        }
        .bld{font-weight:bold;}
        #ygrp-grft{
        font-family:Verdana;
        font-size:77%;
        padding:15px 0;
        }
        #ygrp-ft{
        font-family:verdana;
        font-size:77%;
        border-top:1px solid #666;
        padding:5px 0;
        }
        #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
        padding-bottom:10px;
        }

        #ygrp-vital{
        background-color:#e0ecee;
        margin-bottom:20px;
        padding:2px 0 8px 8px;
        }
        #ygrp-vital #vithd{
        font-size:77%;
        font-family:Verdana;
        font-weight:bold;
        color:#333;
        text-transform:uppercase;
        }
        #ygrp-vital ul{
        padding:0;
        margin:2px 0;
        }
        #ygrp-vital ul li{
        list-style-type:none;
        clear:both;
        border:1px solid #e0ecee;
        }
        #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
        font-weight:bold;
        color:#ff7900;
        float:right;
        width:2em;
        text-align:right;
        padding-right:.5em;
        }
        #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
        font-weight:bold;
        }
        #ygrp-vital a {
        text-decoration:none;
        }

        #ygrp-vital a:hover{
        text-decoration:underline;
        }

        #ygrp-sponsor #hd{
        color:#999;
        font-size:77%;
        }
        #ygrp-sponsor #ov{
        padding:6px 13px;
        background-color:#e0ecee;
        margin-bottom:20px;
        }
        #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
        padding:0 0 0 8px;
        margin:0;
        }
        #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
        list-style-type:square;
        padding:6px 0;
        font-size:77%;
        }
        #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
        text-decoration:none;
        font-size:130%;
        }
        #ygrp-sponsor #nc {
        background-color:#eee;
        margin-bottom:20px;
        padding:0 8px;
        }
        #ygrp-sponsor .ad{
        padding:8px 0;
        }
        #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
        font-family:Arial;
        font-weight:bold;
        color:#628c2a;
        font-size:100%;
        line-height:122%;
        }
        #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
        text-decoration:none;
        }
        #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
        text-decoration:underline;
        }
        #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
        margin:0;
        }
        o {font-size:0;}
        .MsoNormal {
        margin:0 0 0 0;
        }
        #ygrp-text tt{
        font-size:120%;
        }
        blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
        .replbq {margin:4;}
        -->







        __________________________________________________
        �������������� Yahoo!;
        ���������� �� ���������� �������� (spam); �� Yahoo! Mail �������� ��� �������� ������ ��������� ���� ��� ����������� ���������
        http://mail.yahoo.gr

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • elmac526
        Thanks for your input! I wrote me like that because I was trying to do it phonetically, and since it s Latin, the me wouldn t rhyme with a word like bee
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 8, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for your input! I wrote "me" like that because I was trying to
          do it phonetically, and since it's Latin, the "me" wouldn't rhyme
          with a word like "bee" but would rhyme more with "hay." But do you
          think I should write it with the letter "e" even so?




          --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Palatinus <elfiness@...> wrote:
          >
          > It seems to be an acceptable (to me) way to spell Latin with
          tengwar... I know there have been attempts before, I don't know if
          you have consulted them. A mistake I found is that you wrote 'me'
          as 'maa'
          >
          > ----- Original Message ----
          > From: elmac526 <elmac526@...>
          > To: elfscript@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Monday, January 8, 2007 1:02:56 AM
          > Subject: [elfscript] Getting a Tattoo in Elvish

          >
          >
          > Hi everyone, I just found this group, and was wondering
          if anyone would
          >
          > mind helping me. I want to get a tattoo in Elvish, and for the past
          >
          > couple of days have been researching Tengwar.
          >
          >
          >
          > The phrase I want in Tengwar is "Quod me nutrit me destruit" which
          I
          >
          > attempted to translate into Quenya but found very difficult so now
          I am
          >
          > just trying to do it in English. Because the phrase is in Latin,
          >
          > phonetically I figured it would be something like "Kwod mai nutrit
          mai
          >
          > destruit." I have come up with the following:
          >
          >
          >
          > http://www.geocities.com/elmac526/tat.JPG
          >
          >
          >
          > Is this correct? I want to make sure before I do anything permanent.
          >
          > Thank you!
        • Johan Winge
          ... Aha, so, you are trying to capture the English pronunciation of Latin (long e realised as the diphthong in hay , rather than a pure long e), by using a
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 9, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 05:57:32 +0100, elmac526 <elmac526@...> wrote:

            > Thanks for your input! I wrote "me" like that because I was trying to
            > do it phonetically, and since it's Latin, the "me" wouldn't rhyme
            > with a word like "bee" but would rhyme more with "hay." But do you
            > think I should write it with the letter "e" even so?

            Aha, so, you are trying to capture the English pronunciation of Latin
            (long e realised as the diphthong in "hay", rather than a pure long e), by
            using a phonetic mode, which in turn is based on the peculiarities of the
            English orthography (representing the diphthong in "hay", that is /ei/, by
            means of a "long a")? Now, this might be what you want, but frankly, I
            think it makes little sense.

            To clarify, the Latin "e" in the word "me", is, in restored classical
            pronunciation, as well as in almost all national pronunciations except the
            English, a long pure sound /e:/, that is, not a diphthong, but one sound
            drawn out in time. This sound is generally difficult to produce for people
            who have grown up with English, so the diphthong in "hay", "they", is
            generally used instead, as an _approximation_ of the pure vowel. (This is
            very different from what the English would call a "long e", that is the
            sound in "bee", which the Romans would call a long "i".) If you do a
            search for "great vowel shift" on Google, you will get more information
            about the reason for the peculiarities of the English orthography when it
            comes to writing vowels.

            What I would propose instead is that you use a tengwar mode specifically
            adapted to the Latin language. There is no standard way of doing so, but
            it seems to me that using the the Quenya mode as a starting point would be
            a good idea; quesse would then be used to write "qu", for example. Some
            adaptions must of course be undertaken, for example it seems reasonable to
            use ando to write "d".

            I agree with "Palatinus", that, (rather incidently), your transcription
            seems to be an acceptable way of writing the Latin phrase, except for the
            way you wrote "me"; to use the "e" tehta there would be the only
            reasonable choice.

            Some other details: the "u" in "nutrit" is long in classical latin, so you
            can consider doubling the u-tehta, or use a long carrier. (I think you
            should be consistent and either mark all long vowels, that is "nûtrit" and
            "mê", so the alternative would be to get rid of the long carrier in "me".
            I'd recommend indicating the vowel lengths; then again, I'm a classicist.)

            If you want you can also consider using the Quenya order of writing the
            tehtar. I don't know what would be prefered, but the order with the tehta
            on top of the following tengwa is by no means the natural choice.

            Finally, seriously consider if you want to use a computer font for your
            tattoo. An artistical rendering by a skilled calligrapher (who is at least
            familiar with Tengwar) probably would look much better, as well as be more
            personal.

            Best wishes,
            Johan Winge

            PS. Some of the possible ways to transcribe the phrase can be seen at
            http://home.student.uu.se/jowi4905/mix/nutrit.png
            I think I prefer the first line.
          • elmac526
            That helped a lot, Thanks so much! I was so confused about the whole me thing but it makes a lot of sense now :) So, basically, any one of those in your link
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 9, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              That helped a lot, Thanks so much! I was so confused about the
              whole "me" thing but it makes a lot of sense now :)

              So, basically, any one of those in your link would work? And you
              prefer the first line because it is consistant (with the long
              carriers) and uses the Quenya order of writing? I also noticed it
              used the other silme, does the Quenya order require this or can the
              other one be used as well?

              Also thanks for your advice on having a calligrapher write it. I
              would as well prefer this, but the only problem is I don't know
              anyone who does calligraphy :(

              --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Johan Winge" <johan.winge@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 05:57:32 +0100, elmac526 <elmac526@...> wrote:
              >
              > > Thanks for your input! I wrote "me" like that because I was
              trying to
              > > do it phonetically, and since it's Latin, the "me" wouldn't rhyme
              > > with a word like "bee" but would rhyme more with "hay." But do you
              > > think I should write it with the letter "e" even so?
              >
              > Aha, so, you are trying to capture the English pronunciation of
              Latin
              > (long e realised as the diphthong in "hay", rather than a pure long
              e), by
              > using a phonetic mode, which in turn is based on the peculiarities
              of the
              > English orthography (representing the diphthong in "hay", that
              is /ei/, by
              > means of a "long a")? Now, this might be what you want, but
              frankly, I
              > think it makes little sense.
              >
              > To clarify, the Latin "e" in the word "me", is, in restored
              classical
              > pronunciation, as well as in almost all national pronunciations
              except the
              > English, a long pure sound /e:/, that is, not a diphthong, but one
              sound
              > drawn out in time. This sound is generally difficult to produce for
              people
              > who have grown up with English, so the diphthong in "hay", "they",
              is
              > generally used instead, as an _approximation_ of the pure vowel.
              (This is
              > very different from what the English would call a "long e", that is
              the
              > sound in "bee", which the Romans would call a long "i".) If you do
              a
              > search for "great vowel shift" on Google, you will get more
              information
              > about the reason for the peculiarities of the English orthography
              when it
              > comes to writing vowels.
              >
              > What I would propose instead is that you use a tengwar mode
              specifically
              > adapted to the Latin language. There is no standard way of doing
              so, but
              > it seems to me that using the the Quenya mode as a starting point
              would be
              > a good idea; quesse would then be used to write "qu", for example.
              Some
              > adaptions must of course be undertaken, for example it seems
              reasonable to
              > use ando to write "d".
              >
              > I agree with "Palatinus", that, (rather incidently), your
              transcription
              > seems to be an acceptable way of writing the Latin phrase, except
              for the
              > way you wrote "me"; to use the "e" tehta there would be the only
              > reasonable choice.
              >
              > Some other details: the "u" in "nutrit" is long in classical latin,
              so you
              > can consider doubling the u-tehta, or use a long carrier. (I think
              you
              > should be consistent and either mark all long vowels, that
              is "nûtrit" and
              > "mê", so the alternative would be to get rid of the long carrier
              in "me".
              > I'd recommend indicating the vowel lengths; then again, I'm a
              classicist.)
              >
              > If you want you can also consider using the Quenya order of writing
              the
              > tehtar. I don't know what would be prefered, but the order with the
              tehta
              > on top of the following tengwa is by no means the natural choice.
              >
              > Finally, seriously consider if you want to use a computer font for
              your
              > tattoo. An artistical rendering by a skilled calligrapher (who is
              at least
              > familiar with Tengwar) probably would look much better, as well as
              be more
              > personal.
              >
              > Best wishes,
              > Johan Winge
              >
              > PS. Some of the possible ways to transcribe the phrase can be seen
              at
              > http://home.student.uu.se/jowi4905/mix/nutrit.png
              > I think I prefer the first line.
              >
            • Palatinus
              The point with Quenya (or else) order of writing has to do with whether most words end on vowels or consonants Quenya s words end mostly onvowels so vowels as
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 9, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                The point with Quenya (or else) order of writing has to do with whether most words end on vowels or consonants

                Quenya's words end mostly onvowels so vowels as read like following all the consonants

                I don't know which is true about Latin

                ----- Original Message ----
                From: elmac526 <elmac526@...>
                To: elfscript@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2007 7:50:41 PM
                Subject: [elfscript] Re: Getting a Tattoo in Elvish













                That helped a lot, Thanks so much! I was so confused about the

                whole "me" thing but it makes a lot of sense now :)



                So, basically, any one of those in your link would work? And you

                prefer the first line because it is consistant (with the long

                carriers) and uses the Quenya order of writing? I also noticed it

                used the other silme, does the Quenya order require this or can the

                other one be used as well?



                Also thanks for your advice on having a calligrapher write it. I

                would as well prefer this, but the only problem is I don't know

                anyone who does calligraphy :(








                __________________________________________________
                �������������� Yahoo!;
                ���������� �� ���������� �������� (spam); �� Yahoo! Mail �������� ��� �������� ������ ��������� ���� ��� ����������� ���������
                http://mail.yahoo.gr

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Melroch 'Aestan
                ... IMHO the mode choosen would depend on what **kind** of Latin one wants to represent, and indeed how one would want it to be read out. For Classical Latin I
                Message 7 of 10 , Jan 12, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  j_mach_wust skrev:
                  > Johan Winge:
                  >> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:50:41 +0100, elmac526
                  >> <elmac526@...> wrote:
                  >>> So, basically, any one of those in your link would work?
                  >>> And you prefer the first line because it is consistant
                  >>> (with the long carriers) and uses the Quenya order of
                  >>> writing?
                  >> That would be more or less my reasoning, yes, but those
                  >> things are all a matter of opinion. My point is that all
                  >> would be acceptable,
                  >
                  > I'd prefer a representation of Latin shaped after
                  > Tolkien's own Latin tengwar text (DTS 41), that is to say,
                  > a 'general use' mode with the tehtar placed on the
                  > preceding letters and with Latin vowel length opposition
                  > not represented.

                  IMHO the mode choosen would depend on what **kind** of Latin
                  one wants to represent, and indeed how one would want it to
                  be read out. For Classical Latin I would prefer a mode
                  closely modelled on the 'standard' Quenya mode, as the two
                  languages have similar phonologies. If Medieval or even New
                  Latin is concerned, one may indeed want to reflect a
                  different pronunciation -- even one of the 'national'
                  pronunciations. As for DTS 41 it should be noted that these
                  are botanical terms, and an English speaker would read those
                  out in the English pronunciation, even if s/he used the
                  restored pronunciation when reading Latin text.

                  Tehta order should IMO be based on the ratio between vowel-
                  final and consonant final words in the language -- I
                  actually have a Perl script that can calculate such things.
                  For some languages like Swedish, where the ratio is almost
                  50/50 and practically any vowel can occur finally one may
                  use either order. For a language like German with many
                  consonant-
                  final words and where the vast majority of final vowels are
                  _e_, pronounced as schwa, I would use tehtar on following
                  tengwar (or as I call it top-down) and the underdot for
                  unstressed _e_ following a consonant. For Latin which has
                  predominantly vowel-final words I'd definitely use tehtar on
                  preceding tengwar (aka bottom-up). However if one marks
                  vowel length, as one IMO should in Classical Latin it is in
                  fact the case that most final vowels are long, and so would
                  have a carrier anyway!
                  --

                  /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! ||

                  "I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody
                  is altogether on my side" -- Fangorn
                • Johan Winge
                  ... That would be more or less my reasoning, yes, but those things are all a matter of opinion. My point is that all would be acceptable, (though I personally
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jan 12, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:50:41 +0100, elmac526 <elmac526@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > So, basically, any one of those in your link would work? And you
                    > prefer the first line because it is consistant (with the long
                    > carriers) and uses the Quenya order of writing?

                    That would be more or less my reasoning, yes, but those things are all a
                    matter of opinion. My point is that all would be acceptable, (though I
                    personally do not particularly fancy doubled tehtar, for example; on the
                    matter of tehta-order in Latin, I have, as of yet, really no fixed
                    opinion.)

                    > I also noticed it
                    > used the other silme, does the Quenya order require this or can the
                    > other one be used as well?

                    No, any variant is fine. I used it only because I think it looks neat (and
                    because I could).

                    On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:41:24 +0100, Palatinus <elfiness@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > The point with Quenya (or else) order of writing has to do with whether
                    > most words end on vowels or consonants
                    >
                    > Quenya's words end mostly onvowels so vowels as read like following all
                    > the consonants

                    Well, that is one common argument, but I don't know if it is the whole
                    truth. For example, I would expect the syllable structure of the language
                    to have some influence on this.

                    > I don't know which is true about Latin

                    Me neither, so I made some informal research on the matter. It seems that
                    words ending in vowels are slightly more common than words beginning with
                    vowels. For example, in Pliny's letters, we have about 14283 words
                    beginning with a vowel (and ending with a consonant) and about 18110 words
                    ending with a vowel (even when removing the ubiquitous vale, 'farewell'),
                    that is, a 27% difference. An analysis of two of Cicero's speeches gives
                    the numbers 1412 and 1664, i.e. 18%. (The analysis got somewhat impeded by
                    the fact that I had troubles locating a good corpus: I had to find texts
                    that distinguished between "j" (consonant) and "i", but it is
                    unfortunately much more common with editions that don't do this
                    distinction.)

                    Whichever mode is used in this case, it is fortunate that the inital word,
                    "quod", gives an interpretation key for the reader who doesn't know what
                    mode is used: in most languages (that I am familiar with anyway), the
                    consonant cluster /kd/ is not very likely to be word final, and definitely
                    not likely to be word initial. Hence, the reader is forced to assume that
                    the vowel comes in between, and from that, the tehta order of the text is
                    deduced.

                    --
                    Johan Winge
                  • j_mach_wust
                    ... I d prefer a representation of Latin shaped after Tolkien s own Latin tengwar text (DTS 41), that is to say, a general use mode with the tehtar placed on
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jan 12, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Johan Winge:
                      >
                      > On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:50:41 +0100, elmac526 <elmac526@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > So, basically, any one of those in your link would work? And you
                      > > prefer the first line because it is consistant (with the long
                      > > carriers) and uses the Quenya order of writing?
                      >
                      > That would be more or less my reasoning, yes, but those things are
                      > all a matter of opinion. My point is that all would be acceptable,

                      I'd prefer a representation of Latin shaped after Tolkien's own Latin
                      tengwar text (DTS 41), that is to say, a 'general use' mode with the
                      tehtar placed on the preceding letters and with Latin vowel length
                      opposition not represented.

                      > > Quenya's words end mostly onvowels so vowels as read like
                      > > following all the consonants
                      >
                      > Well, that is one common argument, but I don't know if it is the
                      > whole truth. For example, I would expect the syllable structure of
                      > the language to have some influence on this.

                      That's what I'd expect too. More specifically, I'd expect that the
                      VC-order is used in languages that have constraints on final vowels,
                      like for instance in the Germanic languages where words must not end
                      on checked vowels.

                      But then, the tehtar-tengwar order is not that fixed. For English,
                      Quenya and Old English we have both orders attested.

                      grüess
                      mach
                    • j_mach_wust
                      ... I was not referring to the botanical terms in DTS 41 which are represented in their English pronunciation anyway, but to the Latin phrase. And I don t see
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jan 13, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Melroch 'Aestan <melroch@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > j_mach_wust skrev:
                        ...
                        > > I'd prefer a representation of Latin shaped after
                        > > Tolkien's own Latin tengwar text (DTS 41), that is to say,
                        > > a 'general use' mode with the tehtar placed on the
                        > > preceding letters and with Latin vowel length opposition
                        > > not represented.
                        >
                        > IMHO the mode choosen would depend on what **kind** of Latin
                        > one wants to represent, and indeed how one would want it to
                        > be read out. For Classical Latin I would prefer a mode
                        > closely modelled on the 'standard' Quenya mode, as the two
                        > languages have similar phonologies. If Medieval or even New
                        > Latin is concerned, one may indeed want to reflect a
                        > different pronunciation -- even one of the 'national'
                        > pronunciations. As for DTS 41 it should be noted that these
                        > are botanical terms, and an English speaker would read those
                        > out in the English pronunciation, even if s/he used the
                        > restored pronunciation when reading Latin text.

                        I was not referring to the botanical terms in DTS 41 which are
                        represented in their English pronunciation anyway, but to the Latin
                        phrase. And I don't see any need to invent a new unattested mode based
                        on the classical Quenya mode when it is no problem to represent Latin
                        according to the 'general use' of the tengwar; â€" and more than that:
                        It's not only no problem, but also attested. Certainly, the phrase
                        from DTS 41 is not classical pronunciation of Latin, but the classical
                        pronunciation can easily be represented in the same mode.

                        The decision whether to write according to the 'general use' or
                        whether to invent a new mode based on classical Quenya, only concerns
                        the very first letter of the phrase which would be spelled with an
                        additional modified left curl according to the 'general use'.

                        > Swedish, where [...] practically any vowel can occur finally

                        Doesn't Swedish have checked vowels, that is, vowels that can only
                        occur in closed syllables? Or is it because of these that you've
                        written "practically"? I'm curious because I boldly presumed all
                        Germanic languages had checked vowels.

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