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

Re: [elfscript] The runes of The Hobbit.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.