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

Re: [elfscript] An misprint or error in Parma XIII

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Feb 8, 2002
      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 2 of 5 , Feb 8, 2002
        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 3 of 5 , Feb 12, 2002
          --- 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 4 of 5 , Feb 13, 2002
            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.