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

Re: [elfscript] The runes of The Hobbit.

Expand Messages
  • Michael Everson
    The runes in the Hobbit are Anglo-Saxon runes. They are not Cirth. Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.egt.ie 15 Port Chaeimhghein
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 3, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      The runes in the Hobbit are Anglo-Saxon runes. They are not Cirth.

      Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.egt.ie
      15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
      Vox +353 1 478 2597 ** Fax +353 1 478 2597 ** Mob +353 86 807 9169
      27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
    • Vicentini Emanuele
      Greetings, ... I didn t have any doubt about them being Anglo-Saxon (based) runes. My post concerned another thing: the use of that under-dot in Tolkien s
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 3, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Greetings,

        On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Michael Everson wrote:

        > The runes in the Hobbit are Anglo-Saxon runes. They are not Cirth.

        I didn't have any doubt about them being Anglo-Saxon (based)
        runes. My post concerned another thing: the use of that under-dot in
        Tolkien's script and nothing more.


        Saluti,
        Emanuele.

        "He loved maps, as I have told you before; and he also
        liked runes and letters and cunning handwriting..."
        -- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit
      • erilaz@earthlink.net
        ... Tolkien later used a subscript line for the same purpose in the cirth of the Book of Mazarbul (_Pictures_ #23, page III). I m not aware of such a use of
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 3, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Emanuele Vincentini wrote:

          > This feature is not used regularly (I think Tolkien introduced it
          >to correct some spelling error: hobit for hobbit, etc.), but I'd like to
          >know, anyway, what you think about it.

          Tolkien later used a subscript line for the same purpose in the cirth of
          the Book of Mazarbul (_Pictures_ #23, page III). I'm not aware of such a
          use of diacritical marks to indicate gemination in any historical runic
          inscriptions. In most authentic runic inscriptions, geminate consonants
          and long vowels are represented by single runes. Doubled runes are more
          common in later inscriptions than in early ones (due to the influence of
          manuscript spelling practices), and they also seem to be more common in
          Anglo-Saxon inscriptions than in Scandinavian ones. Doubled consonants
          appear on the Franks Casket and the Ruthwell Cross, for example.

          You may be right about Tolkien introducing the dot to correct a misspelt
          _hobit_. I suspect that the stemless forms of cirth #55 and #56 likewise
          had their origin in a scribal error. In the title page inscriptions of the
          first impressions of _The Fellowship of the Ring_ and _The Two Towers_, the
          _d_ is missing from _translated_. In later impressions (and in the first
          impression of _The Return of the King_), this has been corrected by
          changing the final #55 (schwa) into #9 (d) and squeezing a stemless #56
          between the _t_ and the _d_. See Wayne Hammond's _J. R. R. Tolkien: A
          Descriptive Bibliography_, p. 94, for facsimiles of the original and
          corrected inscriptions.


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

          "Do you know Languages? What's the French for fiddle-de-dee?"
          "Fiddle-de-dee's not English," Alice replied gravely.
          "Who ever said it was?" said the Red Queen.

          --Lewis Carroll,
          _Through the Looking-glass_
          ********************************************************************
        • Michael Everson
          ... My point was that you can t really talk about a Hobbit mode because the script being used isn t Cirth. In Unicode we have already encoded the Runes, but
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 4, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Ar 17:39 +0100 2000-11-03, scríobh Vicentini Emanuele:
            >Greetings,
            >
            >On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Michael Everson wrote:
            >
            >> The runes in the Hobbit are Anglo-Saxon runes. They are not Cirth.
            >
            > I didn't have any doubt about them being Anglo-Saxon (based)
            >runes. My post concerned another thing: the use of that under-dot in
            >Tolkien's script and nothing more.

            My point was that you can't really talk about a "Hobbit mode" because the
            script being used isn't Cirth. In Unicode we have already encoded the
            Runes, but we have not yet encoded the Cirth.

            Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.egt.ie
            15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
            Vox +353 1 478 2597 ** Fax +353 1 478 2597 ** Mob +353 86 807 9169
            27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
          • Vicentini Emanuele
            Greetings, ... That s the reason which triggered my post: Dwarves used a variant of Anglo-Saxon runes, but that under-dot seemed alien . That s all. From this
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 6, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Greetings,


              On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 Arden R. Smith wrote:

              > Tolkien later used a subscript line for the same purpose in the cirth of
              > the Book of Mazarbul (_Pictures_ #23, page III). I'm not aware of such a
              > use of diacritical marks to indicate gemination in any historical runic
              > inscriptions. [...]

              That's the reason which triggered my post: Dwarves used a variant
              of Anglo-Saxon runes, but that under-dot seemed "alien". That's all. From
              this point I tried to "extend" the use of that dot to get a more regular
              behaviour (ok, I know, ancient inscriptions aren't very regular :-)).

              Now that you've mentioned the Book of Mazarbul: those two pages
              written with the cirth, in the so called "Erebor mode" (as far as I know),
              reproduced English text and, with a bit of patience, I've re-translated
              them and mapped almost each certh to its roman value.

              Here comes a little problem: according to Appendix E of LoR the
              Erebor mode has some unique features and some changes, but not everything
              is shown in the cirth table. When I first read LoR many years ago I
              thought having understood those sentences about Erebor mode quite well,
              but those pages of the Book throw in some confusion: some cirth have
              "unexpected" values (please, note that I'm not referring here to the
              "extra" cirth or the under-bar).

              Being that it's used to write English I think some cirth could
              have "special" values better suited for the English language; do you think
              that in the Middle-earth context this mode used in the Book of Mazarbul's
              pages could be the real "Erebor mode"?

              > [...] In later impressions (and in the first impression of _The Return
              > of the King_), this has been corrected by changing the final #55
              > (schwa) into #9 (d) and squeezing a stemless #56 between the _t_ and
              > the _d_. See Wayne Hammond's _J. R. R. Tolkien: A Descriptive
              > Bibliography_, p. 94, for facsimiles of the original and corrected
              > inscriptions.

              Thanks for the reference, I'll look for the book.


              Saluti,
              Emanuele.

              "He loved maps, as I have told you before; and he also
              liked runes and letters and cunning handwriting..."
              -- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit
            • erilaz@earthlink.net
              ... Very true. The Mazarbul pages do agree with the list of special characteristics of the Mode of Erebor in the final paragraph of Appendix E: #14=j, #17=x,
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 6, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Emanuele Vincentini wrote:

                > Here comes a little problem: according to Appendix E of LoR the
                >Erebor mode has some unique features and some changes, but not everything
                >is shown in the cirth table. When I first read LoR many years ago I
                >thought having understood those sentences about Erebor mode quite well,
                >but those pages of the Book throw in some confusion: some cirth have
                >"unexpected" values (please, note that I'm not referring here to the
                >"extra" cirth or the under-bar).

                Very true. The Mazarbul pages do agree with the list of special
                characteristics of the Mode of Erebor in the final paragraph of Appendix E:
                #14=j, #17=x, #29=g, #43=z. (Mazarbul uses #19 for "soft g" and #21 for
                gh, but this isn't prohibited by the statement in Appendix E.) However,
                the Ereborian mode exemplified on those pages does deviate from the
                Angerthas Moria in other respects, such as in the use of #35 for s and #54
                for h. So if the Mazarbul pages give an accurate picture of the Mode of
                Erebor, the description of the mode in Appendix E omits some details.

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

                "Do you know Languages? What's the French for fiddle-de-dee?"
                "Fiddle-de-dee's not English," Alice replied gravely.
                "Who ever said it was?" said the Red Queen.

                --Lewis Carroll,
                _Through the Looking-glass_
                ********************************************************************
              • Abrigon
                But since the Hobbbits used a form of common, but their lingo was represented by a Germanic tongue (or like). Then using Germanic runes (Futhurk/Futhark) to
                Message 7 of 8 , Dec 15, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  But since the Hobbbits used a form of common, but their lingo was
                  represented by a Germanic tongue (or like). Then using Germanic runes
                  (Futhurk/Futhark) to represent their Germanic lingo (not the real
                  lingo mind you, but ).

                  Mike

                  One I find fun, is to take the Hobbit runes, find the one closest to
                  it in Cirth and see what you get, you will be mystified.

                  --- In elfscript@y..., Michael Everson <everson@e...> wrote:
                  > The runes in the Hobbit are Anglo-Saxon runes. They are not Cirth.
                  >
                  > Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.egt.ie
                  > 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
                  > Vox +353 1 478 2597 ** Fax +353 1 478 2597 ** Mob +353 86 807 9169
                  > 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.