Johan Winge wrote:

> ...while these are pronounced _differently_ -- a is eg. _not_ the same
> sound as a short a:.
> fAr; kAtt a: ; a
> hUs; kUlle u: ; u
> bÅt; lÅng, lOppa å: ; å
> lEta; dEtta, (mÄtt) e: ; e
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> A simpler approach may be to "only" use nine tehtar, as Angasule did; and
> that is also the way I would advocate. There is no _problem_ with that,
> apart from the loss of a truly phonemical tengwar mode.

No, it's still a phonemic mode -- no Swede would have difficulties
comprehending "far" with the vowel having the same quality as the one in
"katt". What we loose is a truly *phonetic* mode, but we have few
examples of that overall.


> In the mode I've used for myself I have for "y" used the hook _/ or \_/
> seen in LOTR (b_y_ the hobbits) and Letters 118 (ver_y_ happ_y_). I
> wouldn't use the two under-dots, as Angasule suggested, since (1), I
> personally dislike tehtar below the tengwar (silly reason, I know), and
> (2), it is used for the consonant y in Quenya, i.e. I would read it as "j"
> in Swedish.

I prefer to represent _y_ by two dots written above the tengwar, just as
they are used in the Sindarin mode of the final King's Letter. Swedish
/y/ is more similar to Sindarin /y/ than its English counterpart (does
it exist at all in English?).


> Hitherto I have used a three-dot-tehta pointing downwards (a-nuquerna so to
> say) or a v-like tehta for the "ä" sound, being inspired by An Introduction
> to Elvish, but I have absolutely no problems with two overdots (¨). (That's
> what Tolkien used in Lowdham's manuscript found in Sauron Defeated.)

I too use the overturned a-tehta, because its usage for _ä_ (or _æ_) is
fairly well attested in some Tengwar inscriptions published in _J.R.R.
Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator_. Another reason not to use the English
_y_ "hook" (or its chevron-like allograph) is its close similarity to
the overturned a-tehta written rapidly.


> Then there are "å" and "ö". Previously I have sometimes substituted "å:"
> with "a:" and "å" with "o", if you see what I mean. For "ö" I have used "o"
> with a dot below the tengwa, sort of umlaut. I don't like any of these
> attempts though...

I must admit I usually write _å_ with the _o_-curl, but this is just
because I prefer to avoid non-attested usage. (Both /å/ and /o/ is
pronounced [å] occasionally.) I know that many write _å_ as a doubled
_a_, i.e. as two circumflexes connected to resemble an "M". This usage
rymes well with how _å_ developed from long _a_ in the Nordic languages
(the little circle in "å" is actually an "a" in origin).

A friend of mine noted, not too long ago, that if _å_ is written as
double _a_, and _y_ is written as double _i_ (as it were), then doubling
of a tehta can be taken to represent *rounding* of a vowel in Swedish,
and consequently _ö_ could be written as double _e_. Personally, though,
I use the flipped tilde, just as Angasule.


> One issue not being adressed is whether to place the tehta above the
> preceding or following tengwa. I have always placed them above the
> preceding one -- that's what I find most logical. Are you accustomed to
> write in the other way?

I always write them above the following tengwa, but it may not be the
most logical choice. I think when I started writing with Tengwar in
Swedish it felt more natural to follow the English custom, since the
tengwar assignments mostly follow those of the English system.

Suilaid,
Måns


--
Måns Björkman "A grim morn,
Törnby and a glad day,
SE-179 75 Skå and a golden sunset!"
Sweden ~Theoden