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

Variant Anna

Expand Messages
  • Benct Philip Jonsson
    I vaguely remember that the variant of the tengwa Anna which looks like a Roman cursive u and is found in the Tengwar Annatar Alf font (at position 104 h),
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 25, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I vaguely remember that the variant of the tengwa
      Anna which looks like a Roman cursive u and is
      found in the Tengwar Annatar Alf font (at position
      104 h), page 11 in the PDF font manual, occurs
      with a separate value distinct from that of
      ordinary Anna in the same text. Can anybody
      jog my memory?



      /BP 8^)>
      --
      Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __
      A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
      __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
      \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
      / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
      / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
      /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
      Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
      ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
      || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
    • Arden R. Smith
      ... It s in the Giant Treebeard fragment, _The Return of the Shadow_, p. 383, where regular _anna_ represents _a_, but the u-shaped version represents the
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 25, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        On Aug 25, 2008, at 2:53 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:

        > I vaguely remember that the variant of the tengwa
        > Anna which looks like a Roman cursive u and is
        > found in the Tengwar Annatar Alf font (at position
        > 104 h), page 11 in the PDF font manual, occurs
        > with a separate value distinct from that of
        > ordinary Anna in the same text. Can anybody
        > jog my memory?
        >










        It's in the "Giant Treebeard" fragment, _The Return of the Shadow_, p.
        383, where regular _anna_ represents _a_, but the u-shaped version
        represents the vowel of "but".


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

        Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
        --Elvish proverb

        ***************************************************




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Benct Philip Jonsson
        ... Thank you! Another sign whose provenance and value I haven t been able to determine is the tehta which looks like a breve. I have most books only in
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 29, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Arden R. Smith skrev:
          > On Aug 25, 2008, at 2:53 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
          >
          >> I vaguely remember that the variant of the tengwa
          >> Anna which looks like a Roman cursive u and is
          >> found in the Tengwar Annatar Alf font (at position
          >> 104 h), page 11 in the PDF font manual, occurs
          >> with a separate value distinct from that of
          >> ordinary Anna in the same text. Can anybody
          >> jog my memory?
          >>
          >
          > It's in the "Giant Treebeard" fragment, _The Return of the Shadow_, p.
          > 383, where regular _anna_ represents _a_, but the u-shaped version
          > represents the vowel of "but".

          Thank you! Another sign whose provenance and value
          I haven't been able to determine is the tehta which
          looks like a breve. I have most books only in paper
          back, so it is hard to make out such fine distinctions.
          If anyone can help me I'd be most obliged.



          /BP 8^)>
          --
          Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __
          A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
          __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
          \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
          / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
          / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
          /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
          Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
          ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
          || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
        • Johan Winge
          On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:09:27 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson ... See http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript2/message/81 ;-) In DTS 10 it is very clearly
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 29, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:09:27 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson
            <melroch@...> wrote:
            >
            > Thank you! Another sign whose provenance and value
            > I haven't been able to determine is the tehta which
            > looks like a breve. I have most books only in paper
            > back, so it is hard to make out such fine distinctions.
            > If anyone can help me I'd be most obliged.

            See http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript2/message/81 ;-)

            In DTS 10 it is very clearly shaped as a breve, while it tend to be a bit
            more pointed in DTS 4/5; I'm convinced though, that the breve shape is the
            intended one, and that any resemblance to an hacek is accidental. What _I_
            wonder, then, is if the true hacek tehta is actually attested anywhere.
            (It has a merit anyway, as a hypothetical allograph for the reversed A
            tehta, but I would consider it a misspelling using it for the vocalic
            English <y>.)

            -- Johan Winge
          • j_mach_wust
            ... The circumflex allograph of the normal A-tehta isn t attested either, if I remember correctly, only mentioned in Appendix E. I wouldn t go as far as to
            Message 5 of 8 , Aug 30, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In #99 of elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, Johan Winge wrote:
              > What _I_ wonder, then, is if the true hacek
              > tehta is actually attested anywhere. (It has
              > a merit anyway, as a hypothetical allograph
              > for the reversed A tehta, but I would consider
              > it a misspelling using it for the vocalic
              > English <y>.)

              The circumflex allograph of the normal A-tehta isn't attested either,
              if I remember correctly, only mentioned in Appendix E. I wouldn't go
              as far as to consider the caron tehta for Y a misspelling. I think we
              should consider it another allograph of the Y-tehta. The only reason I
              see to favour the breve allograph is that it can't be confused with
              the caron allograph of the reversed A-tehta.

              --
              grüess
              mach
            • Johan Winge
              On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:51:11 +0200, j_mach_wust ... It s attested, in DTS 19/20 (Alatariello nainie looriendesse). ... Not the _only_
              Message 6 of 8 , Aug 30, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:51:11 +0200, j_mach_wust <j_mach_wust@...>
                wrote:

                > The circumflex allograph of the normal A-tehta isn't attested either,
                > if I remember correctly, only mentioned in Appendix E.

                It's attested, in DTS 19/20 (Alatariello nainie looriendesse).

                > I wouldn't go
                > as far as to consider the caron tehta for Y a misspelling. I think we
                > should consider it another allograph of the Y-tehta. The only reason I
                > see to favour the breve allograph is that it can't be confused with
                > the caron allograph of the reversed A-tehta.

                Not the _only_ reason, surely? From a purely statistical point of view,
                there is no question that the breve should be the prefered variant: a
                tehta shaped like a hacek/caron occurs once, if I'm not mistaken, in the
                first line of DTS 4/5. In the second line of the same specimen, the other
                tehta with the same value is shaped like a breve. In DTS 10, all three
                occurances of the tehta are clearly breve shaped. This 4:1 ratio, together
                with the fact that both variants occur in DTS 4/5, leads me to believe
                that the pointedness of the tehta in the first line is purely accidental.
                Sure, we can regard it as an allograph -- although I'm not at all sure
                that Tolkien would --, but to treat it as a norm I find highly
                questionable.

                Regards,
                Johan Winge
              • Benct Philip Jonsson
                ... OH goodness! Now my long-term memory is failing as well! :-) So the bottom line is that: * The breve tehta is the main allograph of the y -tehta. * The
                Message 7 of 8 , Aug 31, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 2008-08-29 Johan Winge wrote:
                  > > Another sign whose provenance and value
                  > > > I haven't been able to determine is the tehta which
                  > > > looks like a breve. I have most books only in paper
                  > > > back, so it is hard to make out such fine distinctions.
                  > > > If anyone can help me I'd be most obliged.
                  >
                  > See http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript2/message/81 ;-)
                  >

                  OH goodness! Now my long-term memory is failing as well! :-)

                  So the bottom line is that:

                  * The 'breve' tehta is the main allograph of the
                  'y'-tehta.
                  * The 'haczek'-tehta is a variant allograph of
                  the 'y'-tehta, and a possible allograph of the
                  'reversed-a'-tehta.

                  This leads to a further questions (which I hope
                  I haven't posed before... :-):

                  * Is the 'breve/haczek'-tehta anywhere attested
                  for the sound [y] (as in Sindarin) or only for
                  [ai] (as in English 'by')?

                  /BP 8^)>
                  --
                  Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
                  A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
                  __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
                  \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
                  / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
                  / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
                  /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
                  Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
                  ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
                  || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
                • Mans Bjorkman
                  ... If I recall correctly, the breve/hacek tehta is only found in English specimina, and is never used to denote phonetic [y]. Its use seems limited to the
                  Message 8 of 8 , Aug 31, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In elfscript2@yahoogroups.com, Benct Philip Jonsson <melroch@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > On 2008-08-29 Johan Winge wrote:
                    > > > Another sign whose provenance and value
                    > > > > I haven't been able to determine is the tehta which
                    > > > > looks like a breve. I have most books only in paper
                    > > > > back, so it is hard to make out such fine distinctions.
                    > > > > If anyone can help me I'd be most obliged.
                    > >
                    > > See http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript2/message/81 ;-)
                    > >
                    >
                    > OH goodness! Now my long-term memory is failing as well! :-)
                    >
                    > So the bottom line is that:
                    >
                    > * The 'breve' tehta is the main allograph of the
                    > 'y'-tehta.
                    > * The 'haczek'-tehta is a variant allograph of
                    > the 'y'-tehta, and a possible allograph of the
                    > 'reversed-a'-tehta.
                    >
                    > This leads to a further questions (which I hope
                    > I haven't posed before... :-):
                    >
                    > * Is the 'breve/haczek'-tehta anywhere attested
                    > for the sound [y] (as in Sindarin) or only for
                    > [ai] (as in English 'by')?

                    If I recall correctly, the 'breve/hacek' tehta is only found in
                    English specimina, and is never used to denote phonetic [y]. Its use
                    seems limited to the transcription of the Roman letter <Y>, regardless
                    if it represents [i] or [ai].

                    Yours,
                    Måns
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.