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

The Book of Mazarbul (Re: [elfscript] The runes of The Hobbit.)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Nov 6, 2000
      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 2 of 8 , Nov 6, 2000
        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 3 of 8 , Dec 15, 2001
          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.