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

Re: Getting a Tattoo in Elvish

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.