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

An misprint or error in Parma XIII

Expand Messages
  • laurifindil
    So far, I have only discovered what looks like just one misprint in Parma 13. On page 71 the 3rd sarat (after k, ng) should be translitterated _h_, not _hw_
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      So far, I have only discovered what looks like just one misprint in
      Parma 13.

      On page 71 the 3rd sarat (after k, ng) should be translitterated _h_,
      not _hw_ (see p. 73 the same sarat). It is hard to tell if it is just
      Tolkien's mistake or a misprint.

      Does anyone else noticed any other "error" (or misprint that is) in
      Parma 13 ?
    • Arden R. Smith
      ... It s a little of both. The manuscript originally had hw , but Tolkien struck through the w . The deletion, however, isn t obvious unless you re looking
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 8, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Laurifindil wrote:

        >So far, I have only discovered what looks like just one misprint in
        >Parma 13.
        >
        >On page 71 the 3rd sarat (after k, ng) should be translitterated _h_,
        >not _hw_ (see p. 73 the same sarat). It is hard to tell if it is just
        >Tolkien's mistake or a misprint.

        It's a little of both. The manuscript originally had "hw", but
        Tolkien struck through the "w". The deletion, however, isn't obvious
        unless you're looking for it; the letter merely looks like a blurry
        "w". You're quite correct, though: the reading *should* be "h",
        which is clear from context. I should have put "h" in the text and
        noted the deletion in the commentary.

        Thanks for your correction.

        --
        *********************************************************************
        Arden R. Smith erilaz@...

        Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
        --Elvish proverb
        *********************************************************************
      • Abrigon
        Oddly, Wh was originally done as hw in anglo-saxon times.. Only later was it reversed to the current Wh.. English I believe has two W sounds. Voiced and
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 8, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Oddly, Wh was originally done as hw in anglo-saxon times.. Only later
          was it reversed to the current Wh..

          English I believe has two W sounds. Voiced and unvoiced..
          When = wh voiced.
          With = w voiceless

          Could also be Hwen, sort of glides from the H into W and then into EN.

          I think.

          Mike
        • laurifindil
          ... _h_, ... just ... obvious ... blurry ... _h_, ... just ... obvious ... Thanks for answering, I didn t know that you were on this ML. I would like to ask
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 12, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In elfscript@y..., "Arden R. Smith" <erilaz@e...> wrote:
            >
            > Laurifindil wrote:
            >
            > >So far, I have only discovered what looks like just one misprint in
            > >Parma 13.
            > >
            > >On page 71 the 3rd sarat (after k, ng) should be translitterated
            _h_,
            > >not _hw_ (see p. 73 the same sarat). It is hard to tell if it is
            just
            > >Tolkien's mistake or a misprint.
            >
            > It's a little of both. The manuscript originally had "hw", but
            > Tolkien struck through the "w". The deletion, however, isn't
            obvious
            > unless you're looking for it; the letter merely looks like a
            blurry
            > "w". You're quite correct, though: the reading *should* be "h",
            > which is clear from context. I should have put "h" in the text and
            > noted the deletion in the commentary.
            >
            > Thanks for your correction.

            Arden R. Smith wrote:
            >
            > Laurifindil wrote:
            >
            > >So far, I have only discovered what looks like just one misprint in
            > >Parma 13.
            > >
            > >On page 71 the 3rd sarat (after k, ng) should be translitterated
            _h_,
            > >not _hw_ (see p. 73 the same sarat). It is hard to tell if it is
            just
            > >Tolkien's mistake or a misprint.
            >
            > It's a little of both. The manuscript originally had "hw", but
            > Tolkien struck through the "w". The deletion, however, isn't
            obvious
            > unless you're looking for it; the letter merely looks like a blurry
            > "w". You're quite correct, though: the reading *should* be "h",
            > which is clear from context. I should have put "h" in the text and
            > noted the deletion in the commentary.
            >
            > Thanks for your correction.
            >

            Thanks for answering, I didn't know that you were on this ML.

            I would like to ask you another question then.

            When you write on page 89 (R26) "no other examples of RĂºmilian are
            available
            from this late period", do you mean : 'I have no access to such
            documents, but
            surely or probably they exist', or 'these documents do not exist;
            Tolkien did not
            write down his new conception about the sarati except for this 'new'
            sarat'.
          • Arden R. Smith
            ... I didn t actually mean either of those, though the latter is most likely true. What I really meant was: I have not seen any such documents, and as far
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 13, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Laurifindil wrote:

              >When you write on page 89 (R26) "no other examples of RĂºmilian are
              >available
              >from this late period", do you mean : 'I have no access to such
              >documents, but
              >surely or probably they exist', or 'these documents do not exist;
              >Tolkien did not
              >write down his new conception about the sarati except for this 'new'
              >sarat'.

              I didn't actually mean either of those, though the latter is most
              likely true. What I really meant was: "I have not seen any such
              documents, and as far as I know, they do not exist."

              --
              *********************************************************************
              Arden R. Smith erilaz@...

              Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
              --Elvish proverb
              *********************************************************************
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.