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

Re: on DTS 71 -- there is a new tengwa!

Expand Messages
  • Mans Bjorkman
    ... The document is described in The History of the Hobbit Part One (p.105-107), but the description provides few insights. Rateliff notes that since the chief
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 7, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...> wrote:
      >
      > At last I have received the long-awaited copy of "Return to Bag-End".
      > As was to be expected, DTS 71 turns out to be most interesting, being
      > the third longest tengwar text (after DTS 50 and DTS 18). It is an
      > English "full writing" according to pronunciation. The vowel signs do
      > not match any previously published tengwar text, though their
      > distribution is most similar to other English tengwar texts according
      > to pronunciation.
      >
      > The text is identical to Bilbo's Contract as published in the Hobbit,
      > so I guess it has been written close to publication or even after it
      > -- I haven't found any part of the book yet that describes DTS 71, so
      > I do not know whether it is known when it was written exactly, and I
      > fear that this might be indicated only in the first part of the
      > History of the Hobbit which I do not possess. Does anybody know
      > something about it?

      The document is described in The History of the Hobbit Part One
      (p.105-107), but the description provides few insights. Rateliff notes
      that since the chief dwarf is called "Thorin" and not "Gandalf", the
      text must date after February 1937. He also states that it must have
      been in existence in February 1938, since Tolkien writes in his letter
      to _The Observer_ (published on 20 February, and reprinted in Appendix
      II of Part Two) that "a facsimile of the original letter left on the
      mantelpiece can be supplied". The latter conclusion I think is
      questionable, however. Tolkien's jovial offer of a facsimile might
      just mean that he was prepared to write such a document upon request.


      > I am also unable to make out what is written at
      > the top. It starts with "Facsimile Thorin's ..." and ends with "39".
      > Might that be the year when it was written? Could anybody decipher
      > more of it, or is it explained in some part of the book?

      Nothing is said about it in the book, but I think the words are
      "Facsimile Thorin's Note [to] Bilbo. _Hobbit_ p 39". It seems thus to
      be a reference to the page on which the letter appears in the
      published book. (A 1993 edition is my possession has the letter on p.38.)


      > * There are many instances of the nasalization bar used on silme
      > nuquerna. If I remember correctly, that usage was previously
      > unpublished. So now we now that the use of the nasalization bar is not
      > restricted to the principal letters.

      I too believe a nasalization bar on "additional" letters was
      unattested before. Note, though, that the nasalization bar stands for
      /n/, even though _silme nuquerna_ is placed in the _parmatéma_ in The
      Lord of the Rings. The usage is thus inconsistent with the statement
      that the bar indicated a nasal "of the same series". Of course, the
      nasal /n/ does share its *point of articulation* with _silme
      nuquerna_, which must be what really matters.


      > * The number 11 seems to be represented by common Arab glyph within
      > the tengwar text: It looks like two carriers that are joined together
      > by a bar similar to the one that closes the quessetéma lúvar or the
      > one on lambe. I think the most likely explanation of this is that it
      > is just a tengwa-like rendering of the Arab glyphs "11" (the bar may
      > resemble the upstroke of the glyph "1" that is common in certain
      > regions -- what is the British usage?).

      Admittedly, I am not an expert of the Arabic alphabet, but I am unable
      to find any resemblance to either the Arabic numeral 1 or the
      "Arabic/Indic" 1 used with the Roman alphabet. Would you care to
      elaborate on this identification?

      To me, the Feanorian 1 in the letter looks most like a J with a
      pronounced horizontal bar at the top. A legacy from the Rúmilian? The
      sarat for /t/ is also used for 1 in our specimen. Turned 90 degrees
      clockwise, this sarat would resemble the Feanorian 1 in the letter a
      great deal.


      > * The word "Inn" has a kind of doubled understroke that might have
      > been used in order to differentiate it from the homophonous word "in"
      > (both are spelt identically).

      Good point! Note also the similar tehta indicating double consonants
      in DTS 50-51.


      Yours,
      Måns
    • j_mach_wust
      ... Thanks a lot for that information! So at least there is a terminus ad quem. ... I don t think we can consider silme nuquerna to belong to the parmatéma. I
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 10, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In #70 of elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, Måns Björkman wrote:
        > > -- I haven't found any part of the book yet that describes DTS 71,
        > > so I do not know whether it is known when it was written exactly,
        > > and I fear that this might be indicated only in the first part of
        > > the History of the Hobbit which I do not possess. Does anybody
        > > know something about it?
        >
        > The document is described in The History of the Hobbit Part One
        > (p.105-107), but the description provides few insights. Rateliff
        > notes that since the chief dwarf is called "Thorin" and not
        > "Gandalf", the text must date after February 1937. He also states
        > that it must have been in existence in February 1938, since Tolkien
        > writes in his letter to _The Observer_ (published on 20 February,
        > and reprinted in Appendix II of Part Two) that "a facsimile of the
        > original letter left on the mantelpiece can be supplied". The latter
        > conclusion I think is questionable, however. Tolkien's jovial offer
        > of a facsimile might just mean that he was prepared to write such a
        > document upon request.

        Thanks a lot for that information! So at least there is a terminus ad
        quem.


        > > * There are many instances of the nasalization bar used on silme
        > > nuquerna. If I remember correctly, that usage was previously
        > > unpublished. So now we now that the use of the nasalization bar is
        > > not restricted to the principal letters.
        >
        > I too believe a nasalization bar on "additional" letters was
        > unattested before. Note, though, that the nasalization bar stands
        > for /n/, even though _silme nuquerna_ is placed in the _parmatéma_
        > in The Lord of the Rings. The usage is thus inconsistent with the
        > statement that the bar indicated a nasal "of the same series". Of
        > course, the nasal /n/ does share its *point of articulation* with
        > _silme nuquerna_, which must be what really matters.

        I don't think we can consider silme nuquerna to belong to the
        parmatéma. I think the concept of témar and tyeller is tied to the
        primary letters and it is only for ease of representation that the
        tengwar table shows the additional letters in the same columns. The
        témar and tyeller of the primary letters form a regular grid of shape
        features corresponding to sound features, but the additional letters
        do not. And compare App. E: "The system contained twenty-four primary
        letters, 1-24, arranged in four _témar_ (series), each of which had
        six _tyeller_ (grades). There were also 'additional letters', of which
        25-36 are examples."


        > > * The number 11 seems to be represented by common Arab glyph
        > > within the tengwar text: It looks like two carriers that are
        > > joined together by a bar similar to the one that closes the
        > > quessetéma lúvar or the one on lambe. I think the most likely
        > > explanation of this is that it is just a tengwa-like rendering of
        > > the Arab glyphs "11" (the bar may resemble the upstroke of the
        > > glyph "1" that is common in certain regions -- what is the British
        > > usage?).
        >
        > Admittedly, I am not an expert of the Arabic alphabet, but I am
        > unable to find any resemblance to either the Arabic numeral 1 or the
        > "Arabic/Indic" 1 used with the Roman alphabet. Would you care to
        > elaborate on this identification?
        >
        > To me, the Feanorian 1 in the letter looks most like a J with a
        > pronounced horizontal bar at the top. A legacy from the Rúmilian?
        > The sarat for /t/ is also used for 1 in our specimen. Turned 90
        > degrees clockwise, this sarat would resemble the Feanorian 1 in the
        > letter a great deal.

        I don't know; to me, what I see in DTS 71 doesn't look much like that
        sarat which rather resembles silme. I agree that the numeral of DTS 71
        resembles the letter J, or if you will, a long carrier with a
        "pronounced horizontal bar at the top". It doesn't look like the
        tengwar numeral for '1' Christopher Tolkien reported. I still think it
        might as well be shaped after our usual Hindo-Arabian numeral "1",
        though now I'm not that enthusiastic any more for the idea of normal
        numerals within a tengwar text. Maybe at that time Tolkien just used a
        tengwar numeral system we don't know. What a pity it is an 11 and not
        10 or 12 which would have allowed more insights in the kind of
        numerals – but then Bilbo probably would have missed Thorin's company
        and the Hobbits would never have played any role in the big events to
        come...

        ---
        grüess
        mach
      • Mans Bjorkman
        ... I agree with you -- but it is also clear that we need to go beyond the description in App.E to explain the use of the nasalization tehta in DTS 71. ... The
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 13, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In #70 of elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, Måns Björkman wrote:
          > > ...
          > > I too believe a nasalization bar on "additional" letters was
          > > unattested before. Note, though, that the nasalization bar stands
          > > for /n/, even though _silme nuquerna_ is placed in the _parmatéma_
          > > in The Lord of the Rings. The usage is thus inconsistent with the
          > > statement that the bar indicated a nasal "of the same series". Of
          > > course, the nasal /n/ does share its *point of articulation* with
          > > _silme nuquerna_, which must be what really matters.
          >
          > I don't think we can consider silme nuquerna to belong to the
          > parmatéma. I think the concept of témar and tyeller is tied to the
          > primary letters and it is only for ease of representation that the
          > tengwar table shows the additional letters in the same columns. The
          > témar and tyeller of the primary letters form a regular grid of shape
          > features corresponding to sound features, but the additional letters
          > do not. And compare App. E: "The system contained twenty-four primary
          > letters, 1-24, arranged in four _témar_ (series), each of which had
          > six _tyeller_ (grades). There were also 'additional letters', of which
          > 25-36 are examples."

          I agree with you -- but it is also clear that we need to go beyond the
          description in App.E to explain the use of the nasalization tehta in
          DTS 71.


          > > To me, the Feanorian 1 in the letter looks most like a J with a
          > > pronounced horizontal bar at the top. A legacy from the Rúmilian?
          > > The sarat for /t/ is also used for 1 in our specimen. Turned 90
          > > degrees clockwise, this sarat would resemble the Feanorian 1 in the
          > > letter a great deal.
          >
          > I don't know; to me, what I see in DTS 71 doesn't look much like that
          > sarat which rather resembles silme. I agree that the numeral of DTS 71
          > resembles the letter J, or if you will, a long carrier with a
          > "pronounced horizontal bar at the top".

          The sarat in question varies a little in appearance. In several
          documents it looks less like a silme and more like a J (e.g. R7, R13,
          R17, R20).


          > It doesn't look like the
          > tengwar numeral for '1' Christopher Tolkien reported. I still think it
          > might as well be shaped after our usual Hindo-Arabian numeral "1",
          > though now I'm not that enthusiastic any more for the idea of normal
          > numerals within a tengwar text. Maybe at that time Tolkien just used a
          > tengwar numeral system we don't know. What a pity it is an 11 and not
          > 10 or 12 which would have allowed more insights in the kind of
          > numerals – but then Bilbo probably would have missed Thorin's company
          > and the Hobbits would never have played any role in the big events to
          > come...

          Which goes to show that everything happens for a reason. :) But I
          agree it would have been nice to have at least one related numeral for
          reference.


          Yours,
          Måns
        • hisilome
          ... I gather you really mean a turned v here--the vowel sound in the English word nut --but how would you represent that in this format? ;) Thanks a lot for
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 4, 2008
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...>
            wrote:

            > ** yanta for [V] (as in DTS 15, note also the virtually identical IPA
            > sign),

            I gather you really mean a 'turned v' here--the vowel sound in the
            English word 'nut'--but how would you represent that in this format? ;)

            Thanks a lot for this overview (well, 'cursory survey of some
            features', as you modestly call it), only stumbled upon this now...

            Cheers,

            Hisilome
          • hisilome
            ... with 39 . ... to be a reference to the page on which the letter appears in the ... p.38.) Yes, by and large I d agree with that reading (although one
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 4, 2008
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "Mans Bjorkman" <at@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@>
              wrote:
              > >> > I am also unable to make out what is written at
              > > the top. It starts with "Facsimile Thorin's ..." and ends
              with "39".
              > > Might that be the year when it was written? Could anybody decipher
              > > more of it, or is it explained in some part of the book?
              >
              > Nothing is said about it in the book, but I think the words are
              > "Facsimile Thorin's Note [to] Bilbo. _Hobbit_ p 39". It seems thus
              to be a reference to the page on which the letter appears in the
              > published book. (A 1993 edition is my possession has the letter on
              p.38.)

              Yes, by and large I'd agree with that reading (although one really
              has to _guess_ the words 'Note to'). I also have to say that the '39'
              looks more like a '37' to me (??). But, for what it's worth, the text
              of the letter ('Bilbo's Contract') _does_ actually appear on p.39 of
              my oldest _Hobbit_ edition (a second edition [seventh impression]
              from 1955 [George Allen & Unwin]), so I'm not sure. Maybe someone who
              owns a first edition could enlighten us as to on what page the letter
              is found in there. :)


              > > * The number 11 seems to be represented by common Arab glyph
              within
              > > the tengwar text: It looks like two carriers that are joined
              together
              > > by a bar similar to the one that closes the quessetéma lúvar or
              the
              > > one on lambe. I think the most likely explanation of this is that
              it
              > > is just a tengwa-like rendering of the Arab glyphs "11" (the bar
              may
              > > resemble the upstroke of the glyph "1" that is common in certain
              > > regions -- what is the British usage?).
              >
              > Admittedly, I am not an expert of the Arabic alphabet, but I am
              unable
              > to find any resemblance to either the Arabic numeral 1 or the
              > "Arabic/Indic" 1 used with the Roman alphabet. Would you care to
              > elaborate on this identification?
              >
              > To me, the Feanorian 1 in the letter looks most like a J with a
              > pronounced horizontal bar at the top. A legacy from the
              >Rúmilian? .The sarat for /t/ is also used for 1 in our specimen.

              Which specimen are you referring to here? Maybe the 'King's Letter'
              (where the '1' looks a bit like silme nuquerna with an overdot)?
              Or are you referring to 'the tengwar numeral for "1" Christopher
              Tolkien reported' that Mach mentions in message #71? (Reported
              where? I'm just curious.)
              I also noticed the sarati numerals in R10b and R11b, where the letter
              for /t/ is used for the numeral '1', here looking more like a silme
              than a 'J' and also having a dot--but _inside_ the 'hook', if you
              like.

              Cheers,

              Hisilome
            • hisilome
              ... wrote: Hi, a few questions occurred to me... First, am I right to assume that at the end of the first sentence (Thorin & Co. greeting Burglar Bilbo) a
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 6, 2008
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...>
                wrote:

                Hi, a few questions occurred to me...

                First, am I right to assume that at the end of the first sentence
                (Thorin & Co. greeting Burglar Bilbo) a yanta with an underdot is
                used to represent our exclamation mark?


                > * There are two different r-signs, rómen and óre, but their usage
                > differs from DTS 16, 17, 18 and 23: The "linking r" is not
                >represented by a sequence of óre and rómen, but by rómen alone; the
                >unstressed syllabic r is marked with a dot below, [...].

                Not consistently, though? E.g. 'burglaR' (simple oore, no
                dot).


                > ** plain vilya for intial schwa and for [a] occurring in
                combinations,

                Yes, so seen in 'Assistance' or 'Acceptance', for example. But what
                about 'Advance'? Is that really a 'plain vilya' preceding the ando?
                Looks almost like a nwalme to me. A misspelling? Or just a rather
                florid bit of calligrapy?


                > ** "connected" carrier for medial schwa.

                Again, not consistently I think. E.g. 'hospitalIty'
                or 'prOfessional'. In the first case, we have the sign for [I]
                instead of a 'connected' carrier--OK, maybe in some varieties of
                English you'd pronounce it like that. But in the second
                word, 'prOfessional', we have osse, which is elsewhere used for [o]--
                now, as far as I can tell, this should definitely be a medial schwa,
                right? I'll be happy to stand corrected.

                Hm, looking at the way 'prOceeded' is spelled ('ow'), I guess Tolkien
                probably _did_ pronounce 'prOfessional' with more of an [o] sound.
                But then, why use osse in once case, and osse with 'following w'
                tehta on top in the other? Did I miss something?

                Cheers,

                Hisilome
              • j_mach_wust
                ... I was just referring to Christopher Tolkien s transcripts published in Quettar 13, 1982, where a sign looking like a connected carrier is said to be used
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 8, 2008
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In #92 of elfscript2, Hisilome wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "Mans Bjorkman" <at@> wrote:
                  ...
                  > > To me, the Feanorian 1 in the letter looks most like a J with a
                  > > pronounced horizontal bar at the top. A legacy from the
                  > >Rúmilian? .The sarat for /t/ is also used for 1 in our specimen.
                  >
                  > Which specimen are you referring to here? Maybe the 'King's Letter'
                  > (where the '1' looks a bit like silme nuquerna with an overdot)?
                  > Or are you referring to 'the tengwar numeral for "1" Christopher
                  > Tolkien reported' that Mach mentions in message #71? (Reported
                  > where? I'm just curious.)

                  I was just referring to Christopher Tolkien's transcripts published in
                  Quettar 13, 1982, where a sign looking like a "connected carrier" is
                  said to be used for the digit 1. BTW, I think the digit 1 of the
                  King's Letters doesn't look like a silme nuquerna, but rather like a
                  turned osse or like a plain tinco lúva without telco. It doesn't
                  extend below the baseline, whereas silme nuquerna always does. So we
                  have three different signs for one: The one attested in DTS 49, the
                  one attested in DTS 72, and the one reported by Christopher Tolkien
                  (which is – strangely enough – the most "popular" one, if you will,
                  that is to say, it's the one that's been adopted in the tengwar
                  comuter fonts).


                  --- In #93 of elfscript2, Hisilome wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi, a few questions occurred to me...
                  >
                  > First, am I right to assume that at the end of the first sentence
                  > (Thorin & Co. greeting Burglar Bilbo) a yanta with an underdot is
                  > used to represent our exclamation mark?

                  That might be right, though I'd rather describe it as a dot with a
                  kind of yanta-like mark above. If it really were an exclamation mark,
                  then I'd suppose the dot would be the more important part of it.

                  > > * There are two different r-signs, rómen and óre, but their usage
                  > > differs from DTS 16, 17, 18 and 23: The "linking r" is not
                  > >represented by a sequence of óre and rómen, but by rómen alone; the
                  > >unstressed syllabic r is marked with a dot below, [...].
                  >
                  > Not consistently, though? E.g. 'burglaR' (simple oore, no
                  > dot).

                  There's no "linking r" in 'burglar Bilbo' because here the R is
                  followed by a consonant, not a vowel, so óre is just what is to be
                  expected.

                  > > ** plain vilya for intial schwa and for [a] occurring in
                  > combinations,
                  >
                  > Yes, so seen in 'Assistance' or 'Acceptance', for example. But what
                  > about 'Advance'? Is that really a 'plain vilya' preceding the ando?
                  > Looks almost like a nwalme to me. A misspelling? Or just a rather
                  > florid bit of calligrapy?

                  To me it certainly looks like plain vilya: One lúva and one telco
                  only. The vertical stroke that closes the lúva is "connected" to the
                  telco of the ando that follows, but I think this occurs regularly in
                  Tolkien's tengwar writing.

                  > > ** "connected" carrier for medial schwa.
                  >
                  > Again, not consistently I think. E.g. 'hospitalIty'
                  > or 'prOfessional'. In the first case, we have the sign for [I]
                  > instead of a 'connected' carrier--OK, maybe in some varieties of
                  > English you'd pronounce it like that. But in the second
                  > word, 'prOfessional', we have osse, which is elsewhere used for
                  > [o]-- now, as far as I can tell, this should definitely be a medial
                  > schwa, right? I'll be happy to stand corrected.
                  >
                  > Hm, looking at the way 'prOceeded' is spelled ('ow'), I guess
                  > Tolkien probably _did_ pronounce 'prOfessional' with more of an [o]
                  > sound. But then, why use osse in once case, and osse with
                  > 'following w' tehta on top in the other? Did I miss something?

                  I think these are really the transcriptions Tolkien intended. You
                  might be interested in the phonetician John C. Wells' article
                  "Whatever happened to Received Pronunciation?" that describes some
                  changes in RP that have happened during the 20th century. To me it was
                  an eye-opener, because I had wondered before why I'd hear Tolkien
                  pronouncing a tapped R in his audio recordings or why he'd transcribe
                  the word "lost" in DTS 24 with a long Ó: According to Wells, this was
                  normal early 20th century RP, see:

                  http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/rphappened.htm

                  A word like "proceed" seems to be more likely to be pronounced with an
                  unreduced vowel than a word like "professional". I couldn't name a
                  reason. Perhaps there's something about the rhyme structure, but
                  that's something I don't know much about. At least, according to
                  www.merriam-webster.com , "proceed" may be pronounced with an
                  unreduced O, but not "professional". And see also Wells note about the
                  change in the quality of the GOAT vowel in the above mentioned article.

                  ---
                  grüess
                  mach
                • j_mach_wust
                  ... I d suppose so. Compare also: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proceed http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional I don t know how
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jul 9, 2008
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- On Wed, 7/9/08, hisilome <david.vdpeet@...> wrote:
                    ...
                    > > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/rphappened.htm
                    > >
                    > > A word like "proceed" seems to be more likely to be pronounced
                    > > with an unreduced vowel than a word like "professional". I
                    > > couldn't name a reason. Perhaps there's something about the rhyme
                    > > structure, but that's something I don't know much about. At
                    > > least, according to www.merriam-webster.com , "proceed" may be
                    > > pronounced with an unreduced O, but not "professional". And see
                    > > also Wells note about the change in the quality of the GOAT vowel
                    > > in the above mentioned article.
                    >
                    > So, [ow] = /ou/ in Wells' article, and [o] = /o/? I still don't
                    > quite appreciate why Tolkien didn't spell the (first) 'o' in both
                    > 'proceed' and 'professional' the same (either both with osse + w or
                    > both with just osse--both of which are non-schwa representations).
                    > Or does it somehow have something to do with the fact that
                    > 'proceed' is more likely to be pronounced with an 'unreduced O'?

                    I'd suppose so. Compare also:
                    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proceed
                    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional

                    I don't know how this difference is to be explained. Maybe something
                    with stress patterns.


                    > --why there is an andaith on the oore in 'BywatER'. How can this be
                    > a long vowel? (OR does that what looks like andaith to me [i.e. an
                    > acute accent] in fact belong to the ando of the word 'dragon' in the
                    > line above--florid calligraphy again?)

                    I'm quite certain this isn't an acute, but a trait of the above ando.
                    The same diagonal stroke is seen on most "capital" letters in the
                    specimen, that is to say, on most doubled telcor. It was previously
                    known from the King's Letters, though it didn't become part of the
                    computer tengwar fonts except on the "brackets" sign (a plain doubled
                    telco).


                    > --do we actually see a 'connected' carrier for the schwa-sound in
                    > 'persOn' or dragOn', and if so, where is the telco of the following
                    > nuumen ('n') then? But wait, the dots under nuumen (it has to be
                    > nuumen then) would indicate a syllabic 'n'. OK, this might work for
                    > 'person', but in 'dragon' there surely should be a schwa...? Or has
                    > this something to do with RP again (didn't see anything about it in
                    > the article, but maybe I overlooked sth)...

                    I'd read númen with a dot below in both cases and interprete it as
                    syllabic N. I have no oversight over the instances of syllabic N in
                    other phonemic English tengwar samples right now.


                    ---
                    grüess
                    mach
                  • Johan Winge
                    ... I agree that the doubled understroke is most probably used to indicate that we are dealing with the noun Inn , rather than the conjunction ( Green Dragon
                    Message 9 of 11 , Nov 8, 2009
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Sun, 07 Oct 2007, Måns Bjorkman wrote:

                      > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, j_mach_wust wrote:
                      >
                      >> * The word "Inn" has a kind of doubled understroke that might have
                      >> been used in order to differentiate it from the homophonous word "in"
                      >> (both are spelt identically).
                      >
                      > Good point! Note also the similar tehta indicating double consonants
                      > in DTS 50-51.

                      I agree that the doubled understroke is most probably used to indicate
                      that we are dealing with the noun "Inn", rather than the conjunction
                      ("Green Dragon in Bywater"). The connection with the consonant doubler in
                      DTS 50-51 would be indubitable, if it was placed below the númen. But
                      since it is instead clearly positioned below the carrier, I would propose
                      a slightly different explanation of this sign:

                      As far as I can see, whenever there are any capital letters in the text as
                      published in The Hobbit, these are represented in this specimen by tengwar
                      with doubled telco. The only apparent exception to this is in this word.
                      Thus my guess is that the double understroke works as a sort of
                      capitalisation of the short carrier.

                      -- Johan Winge
                    • j_mach_wust
                      ... Good point! Add to this that in DTS 71, short carrier represents /i/, while long carrier represents /e/, so it is not possible to embiggen the smallest
                      Message 10 of 11 , Nov 9, 2009
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In #168 of elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, Johan Winge wrote:

                        > As far as I can see, whenever there are any capital letters in the
                        > text as published in The Hobbit, these are represented in this
                        > specimen by tengwar with doubled telco. The only apparent exception
                        > to this is in this word.
                        > Thus my guess is that the double understroke works as a sort of
                        > capitalisation of the short carrier.

                        Good point! Add to this that in DTS 71, short carrier represents /i/, while long carrier represents /e/, so it is not possible to embiggen the smallest carrier.

                        It is an interesting feature of DTS 71 that capital letters seem to be used consistently. I'm not sure how much can be said about this with regard to other specimina. If I'm not mistaken, at least some other English texts show the same feature.

                        --
                        grüess
                        mach
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.