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

Re: [elfscript] The runes of The Hobbit.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.