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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Pronunciation and writing of _r_ in Quenya

Expand Messages
  • Helios De Rosario Martinez
    ... A fellow of the Lambenor list has already pointed that actually I am wrong, since the _r_ in those samples are always trilled (with various lengths, but
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 5, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I wrote:

      > I may be wrong, since I
      > have no knowledge of Finnish, but listening to the samples of
      > Finnish names in http://www.saunalahti.fi/~kajun/finns/alpha.htm I
      > hear that before vowels the _r_ is really trilled (like Spanish
      > _perro_), but before consonants and in final position it is tap
      > (like Spanish _pero_). Am I right?

      A fellow of the Lambenor list has already pointed that actually I am
      wrong, since the _r_ in those samples are always trilled (with various
      lengths, but always trilled).

      So, when I said of the dual writing of _r_ in Quenya that:

      > it is possible that the pattern is of phonetic origin, and each
      > _tengwa_ matches one of the allophones of _r_.

      ... I cannot support such an idea with the model of Finnish _r_.

      Helios.
    • Helios De Rosario Martinez
      ... That was also the idea I wrote in my previous post. But how do you know that the weak _r_ did not exist in the Quenya of Aman? We know that Quenya
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 5, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Edouard Kloczko wrote:

        > I read here "originally occurring in Quenya" as meaning "originally
        > occurring in Common Eldarin (?)or/and Primitive Quendian", e.g.
        > *not* in Quenya as the living language of Aman and later in Exile,
        > in which we had only one trilled r.

        That was also the idea I wrote in my previous post.
        But how do you know that the "weak" _r_ did not exist in the Quenya of
        Aman?

        We know that Quenya changed while the Noldor were in Aman (see for
        example the change _þ_ > _s_ as commented in _The Shibboleth of Fëanor_),
        so I think that we cannot discard the idea that the weak _r_ existed when
        Fëanor invented the tengwar (unless we have any statement by Tolkien
        on this, but I don't know its existence).

        > There was no such thing as a "Third Age" Quenya (of the Eldar): e.g.
        > a dialect used in the T.A. as distinct of the one spoken by the
        > Eldar in the First or the Second Age. This is clearly stated by
        > Tolkien in his letter to Dick Plotz.

        I don't have the text of that famous letter, but that sounds
        interesting. Can anyone provide the citation?

        Thanks
        Helios.

        [Indeed, Edouard ought to have been required to provide the evidence
        for his assertion. Sorry for the moderatorial lapse. CFH]
      • Hans Georg Lundahl
        As far as I can see, unless my memory fails me - confining my knowledge to appendices of _LotR_ - the _rómen_ is an R as pronounced in _perro_ in Castille and
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 5, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          As far as I can see, unless my memory fails me - confining my knowledge to appendices of _LotR_ - the _rómen_ is an R as pronounced in _perro_ in Castille and the _óre_ an R as pronounced in _perro_ in some parts of South America - as the French pronounce J. Confirming this, Tolkien used _óre_ for English mute/Western R. I do not know if either was ever pronounced as R in _peró_ in Castille.

          Höstrusk och grå moln - köp en resa till solen på Yahoo! Resor

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ales Bican
          ... **As I am very interested in these matters (indeed I have spent a lot of time thinking about Quenya phonetics and phonology recently), is it possible for
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 5, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Helios De Rosario Martinez wrote:

            >I skip the discussion on the variants _rd_, _ry_, _hr_ and _rr_, and
            >go directly to the controversial item: the duality of the pronunciation and
            >spelling of the single _r_.

            **As I am very interested in these matters (indeed I have spent
            a lot of time thinking about Quenya phonetics and phonology
            recently), is it possible for you to share your insights with
            us (or me off-list if need be)?

            >We found the main information in the Appendix E:
            >
            >"R represents a trilled _r_ in all positions; the sound was not lost
            >before consonants (as in English _part_)." (LR:1088)

            **As far as I can say, these can mean basically two things: (1) by
            "trilled" Tolkien wanted to stress that Quenya _r_ is not mute and
            is pronounced in each and every position unlike English _r_ (as is
            after all suggested by the second part of the sentence) or, and which
            I find more likely, (2) Quenya _r_ is indeed trilled in all positions
            and (though this is not necessirily implied from the sentence) that
            Quenya _r_ is different to English _r_.

            >"[Óre] was often used for a weak (untrilled) _r_, originally occurring
            >in Quenya and regarded in the system of that language as the weakest
            >consonant of the _tincotéma_." (LR:1094)

            **Unlike Edouard Kloczko, I would read this in such a sense
            that Quenya (as distinguished from CE or PQ) had originally
            two types of _r_'s but later (in, say, Exilic Quenya) only one
            was prevalent.

            >"[Rómen] (in origin a modification of [óre]) was used for 'full'
            >trilled _r_" (LR:1095)

            [snip]

            >So, we may infer that when Fëanor invented the _tengwar_ there were
            >a weak untrilled and a full trilled _r_, clearly different, but in
            >later stages there was only one trilled phoneme.

            **I would like to note that it is not certain whether the
            original tengwar as devised by Feanor really had two
            characters for different _r_'s. What I want to say is that
            <rómen> could have been introduced by later loremasters.

            >The phonemes we are dealing with must be the trilled, tap and
            >approximant alveolars. If we take the literal meaning of the
            >citations, we learn that the phoneme the of _r_ in Third Age was the
            >alveolar trilled, as well as the original sound of _rómen_; and that
            >the original sound of _óre_ should be tap or approximant. We found the
            >approximant a likelier option, since the other _tengwar_ of the sixth
            >grade also represented Quenya approximants (_anna_ == /j/, and _wilya_
            >== /w/).

            **First of all, we do not know whether the rhotics (the _r_ sounds)
            you mention as possible (i.e. a trill, tap and approximant) are really
            alveolar. The contact point or place of approximation (in case of the
            approximant) may also be the dental region, which may be even more
            probable, because _r_ is listed as one of dentals when Tolkien
            mentioned which sounds were permitted word-finally (see Letters
            no. 347), though 'dental' in this case could be just a label that
            unites all these sounds.

            As regards the identity of Quenya _r_, I agree that we must think
            of only (voiced) dental/alveolar trill, tap/flap and approximant.
            All of them most likely apical (contact/approximation made with
            the tip of the tongue).

            I think it would be good to explain what trill, tap/flap and
            approximant rhotics are.

            Trills involve vibration of some articulator which is most often
            the tip of the tongue. The tongue tip is vibrating against a contact
            point in the dental/alveolar region. Trills usually consist of two
            or three periods of vibration.

            Taps (also called flaps, though some authors distinguish between
            taps and flaps) are those rhotic sounds that have only a single
            short closure. They typically involve a direct movement of the
            tongue tip to a contact location in the dental or alveolar region.

            Approximant _r_'s are those rhotics that do not involve contact
            between articulators but only approximation between them. In case
            of e.g. apical dental/alveolar approximant this means that the tip
            of the tongue makes approximation toward the dental/alveolar
            region but makes no contact. Note that this approximation is
            not accompanied by friction (friction is involved in fricative
            _r_'s).

            Now an apical trill occurs in Peninsular Spanish, Finnish and
            Italian (inter alia). A tap occurs in Spanish (usually described
            as dental) or in American English (a different type of tap -- if
            a distinction between tap and flap is maintained, the AE variety
            is rather a flap). Finally, an (alveolar) approximant rhotic is
            typical of Southern British English.

            Let me note that the above information is taken from a book
            called _The Sounds of the World's Languages_ by Peter
            Ladefoged and Ian Maddieson (1996). Another piece of
            information relevant for the present discussion is the fact that
            in Spanish a "weak" _r_ (i.e. the tap) occurs word-finally
            while a trilled _r_ (i.e. the trill) occurs word-initially and
            sometimes intervocalically where it sometimes stands in
            opposition with the tap. This information is taken (though also
            suggested in the aforementioned book) from _Fonetické
            obrazy hlásek_ (Phonetic images of sounds) by Bohuslav Hála
            (1960). Finally, I would like to mention that a book _Finnish_
            by Helen Sulkala and Merja Karjalainen (2002) confirms that
            Finnish _r_ is a trill (they speak about apico-alveolar trill)
            but the book also mentions that in word-medial position
            various allophones from one flap to several flaps appear.

            With this information at hand I can return to Quenya. My
            opinion is as follows: Tolkien spoke about a trilled _r_ and
            I think he really meant the (apical) dental/alveolar trill and
            not the Southern English approximant, because a trill appears
            in Finnish, Spanish and Italian. All of these languages Tolkien
            knew and liked. The untrilled variety Tolkien mentioned in
            App. E is also not (in my opinion) the English approximant
            but a tap/flap. I find it more likely because a tap occurs in
            Spanish (and also in Finnish). And there is also a striking
            resemblance in distribution of the sound. In Spanish a tap
            occurs word-finally; in Quenya the untrilled _r_ is represented
            by <óre> and this tengwa is usually used for word-final _r_'s.
            Furthermore, in Spanish a trill occurs word-initially; in Quenya
            the trilled _r_ is represented by <rómen> and this tengwa
            is usually used for word-initial _r_'s.

            >But others stated that the citations must be interpreted otherwise,
            >since they are oriented to a general (though interested) English
            >public, not to phoneticians, and that the terminology used in the
            >Appendixes does not accurately match the phonetic terminology we
            >are used to, say, the one of the IPA.

            **Appendix E is a problematic text. When reading it, we must
            remember that Tolkien was writing it primarily for English
            readers that could not be supposed to have deep linguistic
            knowledge. Also, he must have been limited by space. And
            he was not or could not be always accurate.

            For instance he says that _h_ in Quenya _eht_, _iht_ had the
            same sound as heard in English 'hew' or 'huge', and that _ht_
            had the sound of _cht_, as in German _echt_ (i.e. ich-Laut),
            _acht_ (i.e. ach-Laut). However, the sound in German _echt_
            is a voiceless palatal fricative but the sound in English
            'hew' is a voiceless palatal approximant (though the difference
            is subtle, of course).

            Another similar case is when Tolkien says that _h_ has the
            sound of English _h_ in 'house' or 'behold'. The problem is
            that the _h_ in 'house' is voiceless but voiced in 'behold'.

            Describing situation in Spanish Helios wrote:

            > - "'full' trilled" is like "vibrante múltiple" ("trilled" for IPA).
            > - "trilled" is like "vibrante" ("trilled" or "tap" for IPA).

            **Do you mean "untrilled" or "tap" for IPA?


            Ales Bican

            --
            What's in a name? That which we call a rose
            by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)
          • Doug Pearson
            ... [snip] ... Not in American English: both _h_s are voiced and sound identical. It seems strange that Tolkien, (who I assume would differentiate these
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 5, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Ales posted:

              > **Appendix E is a problematic text. When reading it, we must
              > remember that Tolkien was writing it primarily for English
              > readers that could not be supposed to have deep linguistic
              > knowledge. Also, he must have been limited by space. And
              > he was not or could not be always accurate.

              [snip]

              > Another similar case is when Tolkien says that _h_ has the
              > sound of English _h_ in 'house' or 'behold'. The problem is
              > that the _h_ in 'house' is voiceless but voiced in 'behold'.

              Not in "American" English: both _h_s are voiced and sound
              identical. It seems strange that Tolkien, (who I assume
              would differentiate these sounds) would make this mistake.
              Could he have had an American audience in mind?

              -- Tobold (Doug Pearson)

              [The answer to the final question is almost certainly "no". As
              for Tolkien having made a "mistake" -- it is far more likely
              that Tolkien was simply speaking of the pronunciation of
              _h_ in a general manner for a lay audience. I note that even
              the OED indicates the pronunciation of the _h_ in both 'house'
              and 'behold' with the same symbol 'h', which the "Key to the
              Pronunciation" indicates is pronounced as in 'ho!" -- PHW]
            • mach
              ... Why would Feanor create a letter for a sound he didn t use? Sure, he also created letters for aspirated sounds, but I guess this was rather because these
              Message 6 of 16 , Jan 6, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Helios cited from app. E:

                > > "[Óre] was often used for a weak (untrilled) _r_, originally occurring
                > > in Quenya and regarded in the system of that language as the weakest
                > > consonant of the _tincotéma_." (LR:1094)

                Edouard Kloczko commented:
                > I read here "originally occurring in Quenya" as meaning "originally
                > occurring in Common Eldarin (?)or/and Primitive Quendian", e.g. *not* in
                > Quenya as the living language of Aman and later in Exile, in which we had
                > only one trilled r.

                Why would Feanor create a letter for a sound he didn't use? Sure, he also
                created letters for aspirated sounds, but I guess this was rather because
                these sounds were observed in the language of the Valar. Or can we suppose
                that the lambengolmor of Feanor's time already knew the sounds of Common
                Eldarin (?)or/and Primitive Quendian? To my understanding, these sounds
                could only be reconstructed when the Eldar knew Sindarin and other Elvish
                dialects from Middle-Earth. And if we suppose that these sounds were known
                at the time of Feanor: Why would a letter for a sound that was only
                distinguished in Common Eldarin (?)or/and Primitive Quendian become part of
                the standard orthography of Quenya?

                As I understand it, there's only an external explanation for the duality of
                r-letters. J. R. R. Tolkien developed these two letters for a phonetic
                representation of his own "r-dropping" dialect of English: rómen for
                approximant _r_ and óre for dropped _r_, that is, for the schwa-sound that
                replaces an original _r_, e.g. in _here, there, under_ (it's difficult to
                decide whether óre is a vowel letter or a consonant letter).

                When he wrote Quenya with tengwar, he used both letters in almost the same
                way he used them in English. Maybe this was only because he was used to do
                so, or maybe because he liked to have diverse letters. Maybe Tolkien's
                attitude to the tengwar was somewhat lax, similar to Feanor's: "[...] in any
                case his primary interest was in _writing_, in its practical and its
                decorative aspects rather than in an accurate phonetic transcription. Not
                that he was with without interest in phonetic analysis" (app. E to _Quendi
                and Eldar_, in: VT 39, p. 8).

                Maybe his use of the two r-letters in Quenya remained unconscient until he
                had to explain how the tengwar work, that is, at last until he wrote the
                appendices to the Lord of the Rings. Helios' above quote might mean that J.
                R. R. Tolkien planned to revise the Quenya phonology by introducing a
                distinction of approximant _r_ vs. trilled _r_, but since his attitude to
                spelling matters was similar to Feanor's, he forgot to do so.

                Is the hypothesis of such a planned but never fulfilled revision plausible,
                I mean, do we have any evidence for similar cases?

                ---------------------------
                j. 'mach' wust
                http://machhezan.tripod.com
                ---------------------------

                [Edouard's reading of "originally occuring in Quenya" (with regard to untrilled
                _r_) as meaning "originally occurring in Common Eldarin (?)or/and Primitive
                Quendian" is, I think, unjustified and highly idiosyncratic. If one applies Occam's
                Razor (the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct) to this question,
                the situation regarding trilled R and weak R in Quenya seems rather obvious.
                Though R came to be pronounced as "a trilled _r_ in all positions" (LR:1088),
                there was originally also a weak R in Quenya (either Old Quenya, or the more
                conservative form of the language spoken in Valinor, as opposed to Exilic
                Quenya). Tolkien's use of the tengwar Rómen versus Óre in his transcription
                of "Namárie" gives us a clear indication of where these two sounds originally
                occurred -- trilled R (rómen) was usual at the beginning of words or
                intervocalically, and weak R (óre) was usual before consonants and at the
                end of words. -- PHW]
              • Helios De Rosario Martinez
                ... [snip] ... Of course. I will translate the text (I wrote it in Spanish) and then post it. But it will be in another post (it is quite long). ... Yes, so it
                Message 7 of 16 , Jan 6, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ales Bican wrote:
                  >
                  > Helios De Rosario Martinez wrote:
                  >
                  > >I skip the discussion on the variants _rd_, _ry_, _hr_ and _rr_,

                  [snip]

                  > is it possible for you to share your insights with
                  > us (or me off-list if need be)?
                  >

                  Of course. I will translate the text (I wrote it in Spanish) and then
                  post it. But it will be in another post (it is quite long).

                  > Another piece of
                  > information relevant for the present discussion is the fact that
                  > in Spanish a "weak" _r_ (i.e. the tap) occurs word-finally
                  > while a trilled _r_ (i.e. the trill) occurs word-initially and
                  > sometimes intervocalically where it sometimes stands in
                  > opposition with the tap.

                  Yes, so it is. The tap also occurs in contact (after or before) a
                  consonant, although in those positions it depends on the individual
                  pronunciation: some people (I myself, for instance) slightly trill
                  ante- and post-consonantal _r_ depending on the velocity of speech
                  (specially when speaking slowly or emphasizing the word). But the rule
                  is:

                  - Initial _r_ and intervocalic _rr_: trilled.
                  - In other positions (final or adjacent to a consonant), and
                  intervocalic _r_: tap.

                  Note that intervocalic _rr_ is not longer (as Finnish); it only marks
                  that it is trilled, opposite to intervocalic _r_.


                  > The untrilled variety Tolkien mentioned in
                  > App. E is also not (in my opinion) the English approximant
                  > but a tap/flap. I find it more likely because a tap occurs in
                  > Spanish (and also in Finnish).

                  That is the only point were we disagree. The sounds in Finnish and
                  Quenya are a good hint, of course. But note that LR:1094 says:

                  "Grade 6 was most often used for the _weakest or 'semi-vocalic'_
                  consonants of each series. (...) Thus [óre] was often used for a weak
                  (untrilled) _r_, _originally_ occurring in Quenya and regarded in the
                  system of that language as the weakest consonant of the tincotéma."
                  [emphasis mine].

                  I learn from those words that the original consonant for _óre_ was a
                  "semi-vocalic" dental, as _anna_ was a "semi-vocalic" velar and
                  _wilya_ was a "semi-vocalic" labio-velar. And I think that this
                  "semi-vocalic" is what in the terminology of the IPA is called
                  "approximant".

                  This is not opposite to the fact that later Quenya lost this
                  approximant sound, and retained only the Finnish-like trilled (and
                  tap, maybe).


                  > Describing situation in Spanish Helios wrote:
                  >
                  > > - "'full' trilled" is like "vibrante múltiple" ("trilled" for
                  > > IPA).
                  > > - "trilled" is like "vibrante" ("trilled" or "tap" for IPA).
                  >
                  > **Do you mean "untrilled" or "tap" for IPA?
                  >

                  No, I mean "either 'trilled' or 'tap' for IPA".
                  _Vibrante_ is (in Spanish phonetical terminology) an ambiguous term,
                  since it can be referred to either _vibrante múltiple_ (trilled) or
                  _vibrante simple_ (tap). The common point is that both are opposite to
                  the approximant, which is nearly "mute" for Spanish ears.

                  What I meant is that maybe Tolkien used the word "trilled" in this
                  way, not with its specific meaning for IPA, but opposite to the "weak"
                  (which he specified as "untrilled") approximant.

                  Helios
                • David Kiltz
                  ... Laurence J. Krieg provided us with an accurate transcription of recordings (made in 1952) where J.R.R. Tolkien reads, inter alia, Namárie and A
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jan 6, 2004
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 05.01.2004, at 23:12, Ales Bican wrote:

                    > With this information at hand I can return to Quenya. My
                    > opinion is as follows: Tolkien spoke about a trilled _r_ and
                    > I think he really meant the (apical) dental/alveolar trill and
                    > not the Southern English approximant, because a trill appears
                    > in Finnish, Spanish and Italian. All of these languages Tolkien
                    > knew and liked. The untrilled variety Tolkien mentioned in
                    > App. E is also not (in my opinion) the English approximant
                    > but a tap/flap. I find it more likely because a tap occurs in
                    > Spanish (and also in Finnish). And there is also a striking
                    > resemblance in distribution of the sound. In Spanish a tap
                    > occurs word-finally; in Quenya the untrilled _r_ is represented
                    > by <óre> and this tengwa is usually used for word-final _r_'s.
                    > Furthermore, in Spanish a trill occurs word-initially; in Quenya
                    > the trilled _r_ is represented by <rómen> and this tengwa
                    > is usually used for word-initial _r_'s.

                    Laurence J. Krieg provided us with an accurate transcription of
                    recordings (made in 1952) where J.R.R. Tolkien reads, inter alia,
                    'Namárie' and 'A Elbereth Gilthoniel' [Jim Allan: An Introduction to
                    Elvish p. 152ff.].

                    From the transcription it can be seen that trilled and tapped 'r' are
                    virtually interchangeable in Tolkien's pronunciation of Elvish. Tapped
                    'r' is numerically prevalent whereas trilled 'r' is found throughout
                    before dental (a common phenomenon).

                    Hence I think it is possible that Quenya is thought to feature (or
                    would 'naturally' have) positional variants of its 'r's, oscillating
                    between trilled and tapped 'r'.

                    However, Tolkien would mean both a tapped and a trilled 'r' when
                    using the cover term 'trilled' in the Appendices.

                    Although the distinction between tapped (actually a 'one-trill' r) and
                    trilled 'r' e.g. in Spanish can be heard clearly, I think most people
                    would characterize those 'r's as 'trilled' when speaking without a
                    linguistic background or making only a rough statement. And
                    indeed a trill is distinguished from a 'tap' or 'flap' just by the
                    number of taps/flaps. That is, a trilled 'r' has many flaps.

                    Hence, I think it most likely that the 'r' originally represented by
                    <óre> would have been an approximant or fricative. As for the point of
                    articulation, the listing in the tincotéma might be suggestive as Ales
                    has said (i.e. dental/alveolar/post-alveolar). A guttural approximant
                    or fricative might also be considered.

                    -David Kiltz
                  • Ales Bican
                    I wrote that my opinion was that by untrilled _r_ Tolkien had meant a tap/flap (occurring in Spanish) and not an approximant (occurring in English). ...
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jan 6, 2004
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I wrote that my opinion was that by 'untrilled' _r_ Tolkien had
                      meant a tap/flap (occurring in Spanish) and not an approximant
                      (occurring in English).

                      Helios De Rosario Martinez wrote:

                      >That is the only point were we disagree. The sounds in Finnish and
                      >Quenya [read: 'Spanish' -- ab] are a good hint, of course. But note that
                      > LR:1094 says:
                      >
                      >"Grade 6 was most often used for the _weakest or 'semi-vocalic'_
                      >consonants of each series. (...) Thus [óre] was often used for a weak
                      >(untrilled) _r_, _originally_ occurring in Quenya and regarded in the
                      >system of that language as the weakest consonant of the tincotéma."
                      >[emphasis mine].

                      **This is an interesting note, I have not considered it until now.
                      Since <vala> belongs to "semi-vocalic" parmatéma/labials, it
                      speaks for my assumption that _v_ is a labial approximant rather
                      than voiced counterpart of _f_. At least _phonologically_
                      (inferring from its distribution and from the general phonological
                      system of Quenya) I am inclided to regard it as a labial
                      approximant and not labial (labio-dental) voiced spirant.

                      [Perhaps of relevance here is Tolkien's note in _The Shibboleth of
                      Fëanor_ that in early Quenya "the labial spirant _f_ was bilabial, and
                      so remains in Vanyarin" (VT41:7). CFH]

                      >I learn from those words that the original consonant for _óre_ was a
                      >"semi-vocalic" dental, as _anna_ was a "semi-vocalic" velar

                      **You mean "semi-vocalic" palatal, because no "semi-vocalic"
                      velar appears in Quenya.

                      > and _wilya_ was a "semi-vocalic" labio-velar. And I think that this
                      >"semi-vocalic" is what in the terminology of the IPA is called
                      >"approximant".

                      **This is certainly a good point. But again we must be cautious
                      with Tolkien's terms, for if he writes "semi-vocalic", it does not
                      have to mean that all these sounds are of the very same nature.
                      Similarly, if he writes "dentals" and lists _t, s, n, r, l_, it
                      does not mean that all these sounds are dentals. I would not rely
                      much on the fact that <óre> belongs to Grade 6, because it does
                      not actually state anything about how it was pronounced. Suppose
                      Quenya really had a tap and not an approximant, do you think that
                      Tolkien would have hesitated to use <óre> for this sound or do you
                      think he would have used another _tengwa_? Even though <óre> does
                      not have to be phonetically the best representation of the tap, it is
                      nevertheless a very apt choice, since <óre> belongs to the
                      _tincotéma_, which is the series that is used to represent all
                      "dental" sounds that appear word-finally except for _l_:
                      <tinco>, <thúle> (?), <númen> and <silme> (supposing it is a
                      modification of <thúle>).

                      >This is not opposite to the fact that later Quenya lost this
                      >approximant sound, and retained only the Finnish-like trilled (and
                      >tap, maybe).

                      **Nor is it oppositive to the fact that Quenya could have
                      lost the tap.

                      >_Vibrante_ is (in Spanish phonetical terminology) an ambiguous term,
                      >since it can be referred to either _vibrante múltiple_ (trilled) or
                      >_vibrante simple_ (tap). The common point is that both are opposite to
                      >the approximant, which is nearly "mute" for Spanish ears.
                      >
                      >What I meant is that maybe Tolkien used the word "trilled" in this
                      >way, not with its specific meaning for IPA, but opposite to the "weak"
                      >(which he specified as "untrilled") approximant.

                      **I see. But still I think it more likely that he meant the tap by
                      "untrilled". If we disregard the loose information Tolkien gives
                      about _r_ in Quenya in App. E, we are only left with indirect
                      evidence from real languages. So if I were to decide whether the
                      "untrilled" _r_ is a tap or an approximant, I would (and will)
                      choose the tap, because a tap occurs in Spanish and distribution
                      of the Spanish tap and trill is very reminiscent of distribution
                      of Quenya <óre> and <rómen> (i.e. "untrilled" and "trilled" _r_).
                      However, as I said it is only indirect evidence.


                      Ales Bican

                      --
                      What's in a name? That which we call a rose
                      by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)
                    • Ales Bican
                      To my note that Tolkien was not always accurate in App. E, e.g. when he stated that Quenya _h_ was pronounced as _h_ in English house (pronounced with a
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jan 6, 2004
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        To my note that Tolkien was not always accurate in App. E, e.g.
                        when he stated that Quenya _h_ was pronounced as _h_ in
                        English 'house' (pronounced with a voiceless glottal fricative)
                        and 'behold' (pronounced with a voiced glottal fricative) several
                        people responded.

                        Doug Pearson wrote:

                        > Not in "American" English: both _h_s are voiced and sound identical.

                        **I am not a native speaker of English, so I have to basically rely
                        on what I read in books. Arthur J. Bronstein in _The Pronunciation
                        of American English_ (1960) notes that the _h_ sound is frequently
                        voiced in intervocalic position, which I think means that the _h_
                        sound is usually voiceless. As an example of voiced intervocalic
                        _h_ the authors gives, inter alia, 'behold'.

                        Eddin Najetovic wrote:

                        > As a matter of fact I am quite certain that in the English spoken in
                        > Britain the _h_'es are voiceless in every position, including
                        > those between vowels.

                        **I took the information about the voiced intervocalic _h_
                        in British Southern standard English from the two books
                        I mentioned last time, i.e. _The Sounds of the World's
                        languages_ by Peter Ladefoged and Ian Maddieson, and
                        _Fonetické obrazy hlásek_ by Bohuslav Hála. I remember
                        I read it also in one of Daniel Jones' books but since I
                        have already returned the book to library I do not remember
                        whether it was _An Outline of English Phonetics_ or _The
                        Pronunciation of English_ (I will check it if necessary).

                        Patrick Wynne wrote:

                        >I note that even the OED indicates the pronunciation of the _h_
                        >in both 'house' and 'behold' with the same symbol 'h', which the
                        >"Key to the Pronunciation" indicates is pronounced as in 'ho!"

                        **Yes, you are right. I have checked the OED. I have also
                        checked my _Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary_ (2000)
                        and here also both words are written using the same character.
                        In the section of the book 'Pronunciation and phonetic symbols'
                        the _h_ character is said to be pronounced as _h_ in 'hat'.
                        The pronunciation of 'hat' is given between two slashes.
                        This is what I find essential, because slashes are normally
                        used for phonological transcriptions. Pronunciation given like
                        this is rather confusing, because it is neither phonetic nor
                        phonemic, it is rather quasi- or pseudo-phonemic but of
                        course it depends on what is meant by 'phoneme' and
                        'phonemic' (generative phonologists, for instance, rejected
                        the notion of 'phoneme' as conceived by the Prague school).
                        Anyway, what I want to say is that if the pronunciation of both
                        'house' and 'behold' is given with one and the same symbol
                        _h_, it is rather to indicate that English has only one _h_
                        "phoneme" which may be pronounced differently according
                        to its position.

                        To return to Tolkien's statement. It is questionable what
                        Tolkien really meant. He need not have been familiar with the
                        fact that English had actually two variants of _h_. Or perhaps
                        he did not realize that the _h_ in 'behold' can be pronounced
                        differently than in 'house'. We might consider it then as an
                        error (even though it does not have to seem so always, we must
                        keep in mind that Tolkien was not omniscient and perfect). Yet
                        it also depends on how _h_ is actually pronounced in Quenya.
                        I suppose that _h_ in e.g. _halla_ "tall" is a voiceless
                        glottal spirant but what about its negation *_alahalla_
                        "not tall, short"? Perhaps the _h_ was voiced here just like
                        in English 'head' vs. 'ahead'.

                        [You may be quite certain that Tolkien was intimately aware of
                        all the allophonic variations in every major and most minor
                        dialects of English. CFH]


                        Ales Bican

                        ps. Another discrepancy in App. E I mentioned last time
                        was the problem of Quenya _hy_, which Tolkien described
                        as two similar yet different sounds (a voiceless palatal
                        approximant and voiceless palatal fricative). Eddin Najetovic
                        agreed with me pointing out that IPA does not even have a
                        symbol for the voiceless palatal approximant. Well, the IPA
                        does not have a lot of symbols it should have, unfortunately,
                        it should have been devised better. But this is not what I want to
                        say. What I want is to raise a question: so what is the Quenya _hy_,
                        a fricative or approximant? And this concerns also _hw_ -- a voiceless
                        labiovelar fricative or voiceless labiovelar approximant?

                        --
                        What's in a name? That which we call a rose
                        by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)
                      • Arden R. Smith
                        ... Really? I see no examples of a voiceless palatal approximant there. In fact, the examples given in Tolkien s description of Quenya _hy_ in Appendix E are
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jan 7, 2004
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ales Bican wrote:

                          >ps. Another discrepancy in App. E I mentioned last time
                          >was the problem of Quenya _hy_, which Tolkien described
                          >as two similar yet different sounds (a voiceless palatal
                          >approximant and voiceless palatal fricative).

                          Really? I see no examples of a voiceless palatal approximant there.
                          In fact, the examples given in Tolkien's description of Quenya _hy_
                          in Appendix E are merely a subset of the examples given for [ç]
                          ("Voiceless palatal central fricative") by Geoffrey K. Pullum and
                          William A. Ladusaw in their _Phonetic Symbol Guide_ (Chicago and
                          London: University of Chicago Press, 1986), p. 30:
                          "Illustrated by the initial segment of English _hue_ in some
                          pronunciations, by the final sound of German _ich_, and by the
                          initial segment of Japanese _hito_."

                          > Eddin Najetovic
                          >agreed with me pointing out that IPA does not even have a
                          >symbol for the voiceless palatal approximant. Well, the IPA
                          >does not have a lot of symbols it should have, unfortunately,
                          >it should have been devised better.

                          You speak as though the IPA was graven in stone long ago and is
                          therefore impervious to change. The IPA has been revised many times
                          in the course of its history, and today's IPA differs in many
                          respects from Paul Passy's original 1888 creation. For example, the
                          IPA didn't differentiate between the voiced palatal approximant and
                          the voiced palatal fricative until *1989*! There's certainly nothing
                          preventing the Association Phonétique International from adding a
                          symbol for the voiceless palatal approximant, should it be deemed
                          necessary. But in the 116-year history of the IPA, it has apparently
                          *not* been deemed necessary.

                          If you need to express the voiceless palatal approximant in the IPA,
                          however, it's already easy enough to do: use [j] with a little
                          circle under it (thus voiceless [j]). This is what Ian Maddieson
                          does in _Patterns of Sounds_ (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1984), p.
                          245. Incidentally, the list that is given there of languages
                          containing that sound doesn't contain any likely models for Quenya:
                          Malagasy, Yao, Klamath, Otomi, Mazahua, Hopi, and Aleut.



                          Postscript: Anyone interested in the history of the IPA should check
                          out the following (in addition to the Pullum and Ladusaw book cited
                          above):

                          Robert William Albright, "The International Phonetic Alphabet: Its
                          Backgrounds and Development." _International Journal of American
                          Linguistics_ 24 (January 1958).

                          Michael K. C. MacMahon, "Phonetic Notation", in: Peter T. Daniels and
                          William Bright (eds.), _The World's Writing Systems_. New York and
                          Oxford: Oxford U. P., 1996, pp. 821-46.

                          Additionally, if you have access to a library with a complete run of
                          _Le maître phonétique_, the organ of the Association Phonétique
                          International, you can see the alphabet growing and changing right
                          before your eyes.

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

                          Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
                          --Elvish proverb
                          *********************************************************************
                        • Ales Bican
                          I mentioned that Tolkien s description in App. E of Quenya _hy_ may be two-fold: it may be either an approximant or fricative ... **As j. mach wust already
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jan 8, 2004
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I mentioned that Tolkien's description in App. E of Quenya _hy_
                            may be two-fold: it may be either an approximant or fricative
                            according to his description (in my view). Arden R. Smith wrote:

                            >Really? I see no examples of a voiceless palatal approximant there.

                            **As j. 'mach' wust already mentioned, I meant the sound in English
                            'hue' to be a voiceless palatal approximant.

                            >In fact, the examples given in Tolkien's description of Quenya _hy_
                            >in Appendix E are merely a subset of the examples given for [ç]
                            >("Voiceless palatal central fricative") by Geoffrey K. Pullum and
                            >William A. Ladusaw in their _Phonetic Symbol Guide_ (Chicago and
                            >London: University of Chicago Press, 1986), p. 30:
                            >"Illustrated by the initial segment of English _hue_ in some
                            >pronunciations, by the final sound of German _ich_, and by the
                            >initial segment of Japanese _hito_."

                            **According to Ian Maddieson and Peter Ladefoged (_The
                            Sounds of the World's Languages_ (2002, first published in
                            1996) Tolkien described two different sounds: "The onset
                            in [English _hue_] is normally a voiceless palatal approximant,
                            _j_ [written with an underposed circle], for which the IPA
                            has no unitary symbol." (326).

                            I wrote:

                            >>Eddin Najetovic
                            >>agreed with me pointing out that IPA does not even have a
                            >>symbol for the voiceless palatal approximant. Well, the IPA
                            >>does not have a lot of symbols it should have, unfortunately,
                            >>it should have been devised better.

                            Arden:

                            >You speak as though the IPA was graven in stone long ago and is
                            >therefore impervious to change.

                            **Well, I suppose this may be a reading of what I wrote. Next time
                            I should definitely attempt to use better words and phases. -- Of
                            course, I know that the IPA underwent a number of revisions, so
                            basically I wanted to say is that it still needs some revisions
                            to be better.

                            > The IPA has been revised many times
                            >in the course of its history, and today's IPA differs in many
                            >respects from Paul Passy's original 1888 creation. For example, the
                            >IPA didn't differentiate between the voiced palatal approximant and
                            >the voiced palatal fricative until *1989*!

                            **Revisions of the chart are (I suppose) based on current research,
                            so what was not (could not) be differentiated in the past can be
                            differentiated today. I do not know the state of affairs in Tolkien's
                            time but maybe it was not known then that the sounds of Eng.
                            _hue_ and Ger. _ich_ are different and therefore Tolkien did not
                            make any difference between them.

                            > There's certainly nothing
                            >preventing the Association Phonétique International from adding a
                            >symbol for the voiceless palatal approximant, should it be deemed
                            >necessary. But in the 116-year history of the IPA, it has apparently
                            >*not* been deemed necessary.

                            **The IPA is (as far as I can see) good for a language like English
                            but as far as I know Czech phoneticians do not perceive as
                            fitting for Czech, but of course it is also a matter of getting
                            used to it. At any rate a character for r-hacek (and no, it is _not_
                            [r] + [zh] (i.e. the sound in 'pleasure')!) is missing (why?). Also,
                            the way afficates are written in the IPA does not look very pleasing
                            to a Czech eye. Another thing that could be bettered is difference
                            between _þ, ð_ and _s, z_.The former are given dental fricatives
                            and the latter as alveolar fricatives. A distinction should, however,
                            be rather made between sibilant and non-sibilant fricatives, as we
                            can have both dental and alveolar _þ, ð_ and dental and alveolar
                            _s, z_.

                            >If you need to express the voiceless palatal approximant in the IPA,
                            >however, it's already easy enough to do: use [j] with a little
                            >circle under it (thus voiceless [j]).

                            **I know that but I and Eddin (I think) meant that the IPA did not have
                            a unitary symbol for it.

                            > This is what Ian Maddieson
                            >does in _Patterns of Sounds_ (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1984), p.
                            >245. Incidentally, the list that is given there of languages
                            >containing that sound doesn't contain any likely models for Quenya:
                            >Malagasy, Yao, Klamath, Otomi, Mazahua, Hopi, and Aleut.

                            **I do not have access to the book, only to the book I mentioned
                            above, which is from 1996. Since this is newer book, I (not having
                            means to find out by myself) prefer to rely on this one. So if
                            English is said to possess this sound, it is a rather likely model.
                            Personally, however, I am inclined to the fricative (in German _ich_)
                            -- _hy_ (at least phonologically) does not appear as the voiceless
                            counterpart of _y_ in Quenya.

                            By the way, could you give me (us) a list of some languages that are
                            mentioned in "your" book? "My" book only mentions (with a reference
                            to "your" book) that less than 5% of the world's languages include
                            the voiceless palatal fricative in their inventory.


                            Ales Bican

                            --
                            What's in a name? That which we call a rose
                            by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)
                          • Arden R. Smith
                            ... Then there s disagreement among phoneticians as to what sound the initial segment of _hue_ really is. I ve already mentioned Pullum and Ladusaw s
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jan 10, 2004
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Ales Bican wrote:

                              >**According to Ian Maddieson and Peter Ladefoged (_The
                              >Sounds of the World's Languages_ (2002, first published in
                              >1996) Tolkien described two different sounds: "The onset
                              >in [English _hue_] is normally a voiceless palatal approximant,
                              >_j_ [written with an underposed circle], for which the IPA
                              >has no unitary symbol." (326).

                              Then there's disagreement among phoneticians as to what sound the
                              initial segment of _hue_ really is. I've already mentioned Pullum
                              and Ladusaw's statement from 1986. Furthermore, William G. Moulton
                              says the following in his _The Sounds of English and German_ (Chicago
                              and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 29:

                              "The initial /h-/ of English /'hju/ _hue_, _Hugh_ [...] is pronounced
                              by many Americans as a [ç] with rather wide opening."

                              My point here is this: If *phoneticians* can't agree what sound
                              appears at the beginning of _hue_, then the distinction between these
                              two sounds must be so minuscule that it is of no practical
                              consequence. So you can go ahead and pronounce _hyarmen_ with a
                              voiceless palatal approximant, and I'll go on pronouncing it with a
                              voiceless palatal fricative, and no one will notice the difference.

                              >By the way, could you give me (us) a list of some languages that are
                              >mentioned in "your" book? "My" book only mentions (with a reference
                              >to "your" book) that less than 5% of the world's languages include
                              >the voiceless palatal fricative in their inventory.

                              I'm guessing that even fewer languages have a voiceless palatal approximant.

                              _Patterns of Sounds_ (p. 231) lists the following languages as having
                              the voiceless palatal fricative: Irish, Norwegian, Bengali, Komi,
                              Margi, Mandarin, Kan, Haida, Kwakw'ala, Paez, and possibly Chuvash.
                              Two things must be borne in mind: (1) This book discusses the
                              *phonologies* of the various languages, so only phonemes are treated
                              here, hence the absence of German (in which Maddieson regards [ç] as
                              an allophone of /x/); (2) The lists are by no means exhaustive (for
                              example, the only Germanic languages included are German and
                              Norwegian).

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

                              Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
                              --Elvish proverb
                              *********************************************************************
                            • Andreas Johansson
                              ... That, or pronunciation varies from speaker to speaker and/or location to location. It s the kind of minor phonetic variation one expect to see abundantly
                              Message 14 of 16 , Jan 11, 2004
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Quoting "Arden R. Smith" <erilaz@...>:

                                > My point here is this: If *phoneticians* can't agree what sound
                                > appears at the beginning of _hue_, then the distinction between these
                                > two sounds must be so minuscule that it is of no practical
                                > consequence.

                                That, or pronunciation varies from speaker to speaker and/or location to
                                location. It's the kind of minor phonetic variation one expect to see
                                abundantly in a language of a few hundred million speakers.

                                Andreas
                              • David Kiltz
                                On 11.01.2004, at 06:20, Arden R. Smith wrote: A.R.Smith says that William G. Moulton says in his _The Sounds of English and German_ (Chicago and London:
                                Message 15 of 16 , Jan 11, 2004
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On 11.01.2004, at 06:20, Arden R. Smith wrote:

                                  A.R.Smith says that William G. Moulton
                                  says in his _The Sounds of English and German_ (Chicago
                                  and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962 that Modern Standard
                                  German [ç] sounds like the initial sound of _hue_ as pronounced by
                                  many Americans. Now there definitely is a difference between the RP
                                  _hue_ sound and the German _ich_ sound (_hue_ is slightly more forward)
                                  but it's a miniscule difference. Note the fact that English /ç/
                                  only occurs before /u/ word initially whereas German /ç/ never does.
                                  That may also add to the difference, thus, perhaps, making the
                                  difference between the sounds hardly more than a positional one. Still,
                                  all Germans I asked (including me) notice and make a clear distinction
                                  between English /ç/ and German /ç/ (and it is lab verifiable!).
                                  Still, I think it fair to settle on /ç/ for Quenya as Tolkien's
                                  examples can be approximations at times.

                                  > Maddieson regards [ç] as
                                  > an allophone of /x/ (in German).

                                  Just for the record: Not only the vocalic environment plays a role here
                                  but also morphemes. Cf. _Frauchen_ /frauçen/ vs. _rauchen_ /rauxen/.

                                  -David Kiltz
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.