--- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "birnstielt" <tbirnstiel@m...>
wrote:
>
> Hi. I just joined elfscript and am entirely new to the world of
Tolkien. I need help. I
> would like to know how to write some names in tengwar cursive for a
tatoo design.
> Who can help me? Thanks, Tim

Hey,
what do you want to get written?

Lucy

I found this url surfing, http://blogs.ardice.com
But can someone explain to me what a blog is?   -   Marenda590g

It's a web log or an online journal.



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: marenda590g
   To: elfscript@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 8:38 AM
   Subject: [elfscript] What is a blog?



   I found this url surfing, http://blogs.ardice.com
   But can someone explain to me what a blog is?   -   Marenda590g





   To Post a message, send it to:   elfscript@eGroups.com
   To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: elfscript-unsubscribe@eGroups.com


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     elfscript-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   No virus found in this incoming message.
   Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
   Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 3/18/2005


   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 3/18/2005


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I found this url surfing, http://blogs.ardice.com
> But can someone explain to me what a blog is?   -

Look the URL closer :) it says what it is

it's a kind of online diary or journal so that your
friends of netfriends can know your news and thoughts,
and even reply

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
ÁðïêôÞóôå ôç äùñåÜí @yahoo.gr äéåýèõíóç óáò óôï http://www.otenet.gr

Gildor Inglorion skrev:
>>I found this url surfing, http://blogs.ardice.com
>>But can someone explain to me what a blog is?   -
>
>
> Look the URL closer :) it says what it is
>
> it's a kind of online diary or journal so that your
> friends of netfriends can know your news and thoughts,
> and even reply

This same message came to another group I'm on,
but under another name.  It is surely spam.

--

/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
                 A h-ammen ledin i phith!                \ \
      __  ____ ____    _____________ ____ __   __ __     / /
      \ \/___ \\__ \  /___  _____/\ \\__ \\ \  \ \\ \   / /
      / /   / /  /  \    / /Melroch\ \_/ // /  / // /  / /
     / /___/ /_ / /\ \  / /'Aestan ~\_  // /__/ // /__/ /
    /_________//_/  \_\/ /Eowine __  / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
   ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
"A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)

Hi,

Just wanted to say again Thankyou for you advice- I transcribed a
*revised* translation into the Mode of Beleriand and then downloaded
the Tengwar Annatar file you gave me a link to and...it works! The
Tengwar transcription was the same the one I'd tried to do, and it
has the Tehtar.

I have, however, kept the phrase in Sindarin- not in English as you
sugested. Is that such a bad idea?

I'd like to double-check my translation now, but I'm supposed to do
that in elfling, right? I'm just a little self-conscious.

Thankyou.

--- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "pengrons_friend"
<pengrons_friend@y...> wrote:
> Just wanted to say again Thankyou for you advice- I transcribed a
> *revised* translation into the Mode of Beleriand and then
> downloaded the Tengwar Annatar file you gave me a link to and...it
> works! The Tengwar transcription was the same the one I'd tried to
> do, and it has the Tehtar.

Hi,
that's great!

> I have, however, kept the phrase in Sindarin- not in English as you
> sugested. Is that such a bad idea?

Well, there are two quite big and serious reasons for keeping the
sentence in English and having the English sentence transcribed:
1) Sindarin is a quite poorely attested language (for such purpose -
translation of a somehow 'normal' sentence from a living language);
the translation is not Sindarin but the so-called Neo-Sindarin, it
means there is no (by my opinion sufficient) certainty of its
correctness; and as you can see, there are always different opinions
about the matter (I don't agree with the translation,
but there are some students who do agree - and here, I think, it
doesn't matter how the person is advanced).
2) The Tengwar for English itself is much much more attested and
known than the one for Sindarin so we would be able to support the
transcription by more examples that Prof. Tolkien left behind.

> I'd like to double-check my translation now, but I'm supposed to do
> that in elfling, right? I'm just a little self-conscious.

Yes, all that concerns the languages themselves -> Elfling, all that
concerns the writing systems (Tenwar, Cirth) -> Elfscript. :)

Lucy

--- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Tim "birnstielt" <tbirnstiel@m...>
asked me privately:
> I would like to include the following names for a design:
> Mikayla, Tristan, Trevor, Dane, and Saxon

I prepared a .gif picture of these names in Tengwar - and would like
to ask you, my dear tegilborath, to have a look at it for the sake of
correctness. It's in the Files/calwen76/timsnames.gif

Thanks,
Lucy

Hi

I've uploaded a transcription of the poem Errantry that tries to stick
as close as possible to Tolkien's phonemic tehtar mode samples (DTS 39
- Doodled Headlines, DTS 41 - Envelope Doodles, and DTS 58 - The
Howlett Rivendell Inscriptions). That poem seems to be a good test
case for an English mode since it contains many difficult words
(actually most English texts do) and because Tolkien himself has
transcribed its beginning (DTS 16 - Elvish Script Sample I).

http://tengwar.xardas.lima-city.de/verschidnigs/some_tengwar_images/erntri.pdf

There's also an rtf-version (which requires the new version of tengwar
annatar to be installed):

http://tengwar.xardas.lima-city.de/verschidnigs/some_tengwar_images/erntri.rtf

My main difficulty has been about the schwa sounds (the weak sounds as
at the beginning and at the end of the word _America_; in this mail, I
transcribe it with _@_: /@merik@/).

The schwa is attested with a dot below in the world /nash@n@list/ (DTS
39). However, the tehtar are carried by the preceding tengwar in this
word (so it is actually written _na-sh@-n@-li-st_), which is contrary
to what Tolkien says about tengwar-tehtar order in app. E. Since the
phonemic tehtar mode samples show both writings, I have chosen to
place the tehtar on the following tengwar based on app. E.

Now the problem is, if we try to write this same word with the tehtar
on the following tengwar, then it looks weird: _n-ash-@n-@l-is-t_. If
you read that, you get a beginning that rhymes with _passion_ and then
fail to read the rest because you got the beginning wrong: The word is
not _nassion-list_ but _na-tio-na-list_. It's even more evident in a
word such as _gondola_: If this is written _g-ond-@l-@_, then you'll
read _gondle-uh_ and not _gondola_, and it also looks very strange to
place a dot below a short carrier.

My solution for this problem has been to represent the schwa with a
grave accent as the one seen in the word _cladiolus_ (DTS 41; probably
a misspelling of _gladiolus_). I still use the dot below for words
such as _lable_ (l-ey-b-.l), _rhythm_ (r-idh-.m), _errantry_
(er-.nt-r-i) (which is its only use in the phonemic full writing
modes), as in DTS 39 (in the word _Britain_: _b-r-it-.n), but contrary
to DTS 58 (where _Rivendell_ is transcribed as _r-iv-nd-el,
ri-v-nde-l_ without any dot).

For initial schwa (as in _again_ /@gen/), however, I've used the
carrier that is connected to the next tengwa by a kind of quesse-bar.
Maybe this is not a good solution.

Another problem is that we have no attested tehta for the vowel of
_nut_. I've used the grave accent as well. The use of the same sign
for schwa and for the vowel of _nut_ is attested in phonemic English
sarati texts (though the phonemic full writing tengwar modes use
different signs).

I hope for comments on these or on other points.

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

j. 'mach' wust scripsit:

   The schwa is attested with a dot below in the world /nash@n@list/ (DTS
   39). However, the tehtar are carried by the preceding tengwar in this
   word (so it is actually written _na-sh@-n@-li-st_), which is contrary
   to what Tolkien says about tengwar-tehtar order in app. E.


   <<Right, but one can hardly argue with the grand master if he decides to spell
otherwise, as in DTS 39 ;).>>


   Since the phonemic tehtar mode samples show both writings, I have chosen to
   place the tehtar on the following tengwar based on app. E.

   Now the problem is, if we try to write this same word with the tehtar
   on the following tengwar, then it looks weird: _n-ash-@n-@l-is-t_. If
   you read that, you get a beginning that rhymes with _passion_ and then
   fail to read the rest because you got the beginning wrong: The word is
   not _nassion-list_ but _na-tio-na-list_. It's even more evident in a
   word such as _gondola_: If this is written _g-ond-@l-@_, then you'll
   read _gondle-uh_ and not _gondola_, and it also looks very strange to
   place a dot below a short carrier.


   <<First of all, I assume you treat under-dots (meant to represent schwas) just
like other tehtar, so if (as usually the case in English) the tehtar are placed
on the following tengwar, the schwa would have to be put _under_ the _following_
tengwar. I can't say this is wrong, of course, though it somehow doesn't _feel_
right: normally in English tengwar-tehtar modes the "reading direction" is from
top to bottom, but putting the "schwa-dot" _under_ the following consonant would
reverse this.

   Personally I would prefer a solution where one could possibly still use the
under-dot for schwas, but would treat them like the underdots representing
silent "e" in the Mazarbul mode etc. (which are of course not tehtar modes),
i.e. one would always put them under the preceding consonant, whether one puts
the "other" tehtar on the following or the preceding consonant.

   Since we have no example for a tehtar phonemic mode that features _both_
tehtar put on the following tengwar and under-dots for schwahs, we should at
least consider this possibility (at least until there's evidence to the
contrary) as something the professor might have deemed valid.

   (As is clear from your own statements above and below, we do not have any
Tolkien-made examples to guide us on this specific issue, since in the DTS 39,
the tehtar and the "schwa-under-dots" are all consistently put on the preceding
consonants, and in the Rivendell inscriptions, the schwas aren't indicated at
all [also a possible "solution", albeit probably not very satisfactory].)

   My general impression is that under-dots, no matter if they represent syllabic
consonants, mute following "e" or schwas, tend to be treated differently from
the other tehtar. The under-dot for silent "e", for example, is always put under
the preceding consonant, even where the tehtar are put on the following
consonant (as in the LotR title page inscription or the Brogan Tengwar
greetings--which represent, of course, orthographic spellings).
   (Naturally you could argue that in the case of dots for syllabic
consonants/following mute "e", these are _de facto_ not tehtar, as strictly
speaking they do not represent vowels, but either consonants that [like usually
only vowels] create a syllable on their own, or vowels that exist in traditional
orthography but are not pronounced. I seem to recall that you consider these two
kinds of under-dots as very distinct from the tehtar, rather as modifiers of the
preceding sounds.)

   BTW, I don't quite follow your argument about the word "nationalist": I would
have no problem reading it even if the tehtar (incl. the schwah-under-dots) are
put on the following tengwar (/n-ash-@n-@l-is-t/). If one knows English, and
knows the relevant rules (tehtar/schwah-dots placed on following consonant) it
should still be evident what is meant here. The same for gondola. But maybe
others feel different?

   As I have made clear above, I might also be fine with /n-ash@-n@-l-is-t/, i.e.
schwa-dots under preceding, other tehtar on following tengwar.

   Having said all that, I think your proposed spelling with a grave accent is
very elegant--as the entire transcription is aesthetically very pleasing, thanks
a lot!

   About _cladiolus_, though: isn't it _cladioulus_, or how is one to interpret
the O-tehta on uure (if not as "o" + "w/u", read from top to bottom since this
is a diphthong)?
   Also, in this example it seems that the tehtar (incl. the grave accent, that
in my reproduction [AI] seems to be on the lambe rather than the silme nuquerna)
are also placed on the preceding tengwar (as in DTS 39), not on the following
(which is the practice you use in your "Errantry" transcription).
   And, since I'm at it, what about that funny-looking stroke on top of formen in
the next word, _fatarum_? Any explanation for that?>>

   Greetings,

   Hísilómë



   My solution for this problem has been to represent the schwa with a
   grave accent as the one seen in the word _cladiolus_ (DTS 41; probably
   a misspelling of _gladiolus_). I still use the dot below for words
   such as _lable_ (l-ey-b-.l), _rhythm_ (r-idh-.m), _errantry_
   (er-.nt-r-i) (which is its only use in the phonemic full writing
   modes), as in DTS 39 (in the word _Britain_: _b-r-it-.n), but contrary
   to DTS 58 (where _Rivendell_ is transcribed as _r-iv-nd-el,
   ri-v-nde-l_ without any dot).

   For initial schwa (as in _again_ /@gen/), however, I've used the
   carrier that is connected to the next tengwa by a kind of quesse-bar.
   Maybe this is not a good solution.

   Another problem is that we have no attested tehta for the vowel of
   _nut_. I've used the grave accent as well. The use of the same sign
   for schwa and for the vowel of _nut_ is attested in phonemic English
   sarati texts (though the phonemic full writing tengwar modes use
   different signs).

   I hope for comments on these or on other points.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dave wrote:
>
> j. 'mach' wust scripsit:
>
> > The schwa is attested with a dot below in the world /nash@n@list/
> > (DTS 39). However, the tehtar are carried by the preceding
> > tengwar in this word (so it is actually written
> > _na-sh@-n@-li-st_), which is contrary to what Tolkien says about
> > tengwar-tehtar order in app. E.
>
> <<Right, but one can hardly argue with the grand master if he
> decides to spell otherwise, as in DTS 39 ;).>>

It's not about arguing with the grand master, but rather about
deciding which one of his examples to follow, since DTS 39 and 58
provide us with both tehtar-tengwar orders. As both are equally
attested, I give the last word to the master's theory provided in the
appendices.


> <<First of all, I assume you treat under-dots (meant to represent
> schwas) just like other tehtar, so if (as usually the case in
> English) the tehtar are placed on the following tengwar, the schwa
> would have to be put _under_ the _following_ tengwar. I can't say
> this is wrong, of course, though it somehow doesn't _feel_ right:
> normally in English tengwar-tehtar modes the "reading direction" is
> from top to bottom, but putting the "schwa-dot" _under_ the
> following consonant would reverse this.

I think what is written about reading direction is secondary. The word
_na-sh@-n@-li-s-t_ in DTS 39 is a pretty unequivocal example that the
reading direction doesn't matter, but only whether the tehtar are
placed on the following or the preceding tengwa. This is further
examplified for the other tengwar-tehtar order by the word _b-r-it-@n_
in the same specimen, though in this word we can argue that the dot
below is not meant to be a schwa, but only an indication of the
syllabicity of the consonant _n_ (the pronunciation being _bri-tn_
without any vowel in the second syllable). However, this still makes
it impossible for the name _Edna_ to be written as _ed-n@_ (according
to the reading direction top-down) since this would be misread as if
the word were _edden_.

It's not like this in all the modes, the main contrary example being
the old English mode of DTS 50 where we really observe the reading
direction top-down. As you've said, the dot below in the orthographic
modes doesn't need to be a sample of the reading direction top-down,
since we may consider it not to be a vowel tehta, but a mere modifier
(and modifiers don't care for tengwar-tehtar order as can be seen in
the instances of the nasal bar).

***

On a second thought: In a mode where the vowel tehtar placed on the
preceding tengwar, we have an unambiguous evidence for the schwa-dot
to be placed the same way, at the preceding tengwa (in _nationalist_).
In a mode where the vowel tehtar are placed on the following tehtar,
we have no unambiguous evidence for the schwa-dot in any modern
English mode, since the word _Britain_ in DTS 39 can be considered to
have a syllabicity-dot, not a schwa-dot. However, there's the evidence
of DTS 50 that shows the reading direction top-down.

Now this use of the schwa-dot is incompatible with the
syllabicity-dot. DTS 58 doesn't employ the syllabicity-dot in the name
_Rivendell_, so we may choose not to mark syllabicity at all and to
use only the schwa-dot placed under the preceding tengwar, after the
model of DTS 50, and accepting that _Edna_ may be misread as _edden_.

This is an elegant solution because it allows the use of the dot for
_weak, obscured vowels_ as described in app. E, and because it doesn't
require the grave accent to be used which is attested only once in the
publicated material. The disadvantage is that this mode doesn't match
any of the samples in DTS 39 and 41, but only one word in DTS 58...
but it matches best app. E...

Remains the problem of initial schwa. There's no attested sample of a
carrier with a tehta below. I'd choose the "connected" carrier, the
same as in the Bombadil-modes (DTS 16, 17, 18, 23).

I think I'll rewrite Errantry...


> BTW, I don't quite follow your argument about the word
> "nationalist": I would have no problem reading it even if the
> tehtar (incl. the schwah-under-dots) are put on the following
> tengwar (/n-ash-@n-@l-is-t/). If one knows English, and knows the
> relevant rules (tehtar/schwah-dots placed on following consonant)
> it should still be evident what is meant here. The same for
> gondola. But maybe others feel different?

My problem was about the distinction of schwa and the indication of
syllabicity of a consonant. If there is _g-ond-.l-.[carrier]_, then I
read the first dot not as a schwa, but as an indication that the _l_
is syllabic, as it is in many words such as in _tickle, dangle,
little_ etc. However, it really should be read as a schwa. In the
phonemic full writing mode, the word _gond@l@_ has schwa letters, and
not dots below which are alway used to mark syllabicity.

So I think the dot below should either represent the syllabicity or
the schwa. If it represents syllabicity, then the schwa can be
represented by the grave accent; if it represents schwa, then the
syllabicity can remain unmarked.

If the dot is used for schwa and syllabicity is not marked, then the
word _nation_ would have no dot: _n-ey-sh-n_. The word _national_,
however, would require two dots: _n-ash-.n-.l_ with the dots placed
like the other tehtar or _n-ash.-n.-l_ with the dots placed as in DTS 50.


> About _cladiolus_, though: isn't it _cladioulus_, or how is one to
> interpret the O-tehta on uure (if not as "o" + "w/u", read from top
> to bottom since this is a diphthong)?

You're right, I just gave a rather orthographic transcription (the
plant spells _gladiolus_).

> Also, in this example it
> seems that the tehtar (incl. the grave accent, that in my
> reproduction [AI] seems to be on the lambe rather than the silme
> nuquerna) are also placed on the preceding tengwar (as in DTS 39),
> not on the following (which is the practice you use in your
> "Errantry" transcription).

Exactly. The use of úre is also a very good evidence for this.

> And, since I'm at it, what about that
> funny-looking stroke on top of formen in the next word, _fatarum_?
> Any explanation for that?>>

I've never wondered yet! I've been comfortable with my immediate
intuition that it is either a slip or an accidental adornation. The
dot within quesse in the word _incursu_ is also interesting.

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

Hi Calwen76,

Gee- I'm so glad I came to this group for some guidance. You make
some very interesting, and I must say convincing, points as to why I
should not use a "Sindarin" translation of my phrase.  I admit that I
like certainty (I am, after all, a scientist), and therefore am a
little concerned about your point that I would actually be unable to
verify the accuracy of any "Neo-Sindarin translation". I did the
transcription in Tengwar for English and it did look quite nice.

That said, I'd still like to check my revised translation with
Elfling and hope for some sort of a consensus on it. If I got that I
would be comfortable with using it. Uncertainty is sometimes a good
thing, and I can't help it- I just like the Neo-Sindarin version.

Thanks again,

Rachel.

> j. 'mach' wust scripsit:
   >
   > <<Right, but one can hardly argue with the grand master if he
   > decides to spell otherwise, as in DTS 39 ;).>>

   It's not about arguing with the grand master, but rather about
   deciding which one of his examples to follow, since DTS 39 and 58
   provide us with both tehtar-tengwar orders. As both are equally
   attested, I give the last word to the master's theory provided in the
   appendices.

   <<Well, I was kind of half joking there...I'm all for giving the LotR
Appendices their due weight...not like some who seem to think they weren't much
more than a rather over-simplistic version of the professor's ideas and
explanations for those without much linguistic training (like me :).>>


   I think what is written about reading direction is secondary.


   <<Actually, I was only voicing my own, very subjective, feelings on the issue
here, not referring to any secondary sources. I am also aware that Tolkien
himself did experiment with different styles and had no overly rigid rules on
this (see DTS 58, or DTS 38/54:2, Quenya with tehtar on following tengwar), only
general guidelines, such as: Quenya texts _usually_ place tehtar on the
preceding tengwar etc.>>



   The word _na-sh@-n@-li-s-t_ in DTS 39 is a pretty unequivocal example that the
   reading direction doesn't matter, but only whether the tehtar are
   placed on the following or the preceding tengwa. ... However, this still makes
   it impossible for the name _Edna_ to be written as _ed-n@_ (according
   to the reading direction top-down) since this would be misread as if
   the word were _edden_.

   It's not like this in all the modes, the main contrary example being
   the old English mode of DTS 50 where we really observe the reading
   direction top-down. As you've said, the dot below in the orthographic
   modes doesn't need to be a sample of the reading direction top-down,
   since we may consider it not to be a vowel tehta, but a mere modifier
   (and modifiers don't care for tengwar-tehtar order as can be seen in
   the instances of the nasal bar).

   ***

   On a second thought: In a mode where the vowel tehtar placed on the
   preceding tengwar, we have an unambiguous evidence for the schwa-dot
   to be placed the same way, at the preceding tengwa (in _nationalist_).
   In a mode where the vowel tehtar are placed on the following tehtar,
   we have no unambiguous evidence for the schwa-dot in any modern
   English mode, since the word _Britain_ in DTS 39 can be considered to
   have a syllabicity-dot, not a schwa-dot. However, there's the evidence
   of DTS 50 that shows the reading direction top-down.

   Now this use of the schwa-dot is incompatible with the
   syllabicity-dot. DTS 58 doesn't employ the syllabicity-dot in the name
   _Rivendell_, so we may choose not to mark syllabicity at all and to
   use only the schwa-dot placed under the preceding tengwar, after the
   model of DTS 50, and accepting that _Edna_ may be misread as _edden_.


   <<Yes, this sounds good to me, too. In most cases, there wouldn't really be
any ambiguity (as there's none here: no English word "edden" AFAIK, except maybe
as a name), particularly once you've figured the system out.
   The grave accent doesn't look all bad, either, though. Aesthetically, both are
attractive I think, so it's really a matter of choice and consistency within a
given text.>>


   This is an elegant solution because it allows the use of the dot for
   _weak, obscured vowels_ as described in app. E, and because it doesn't
   require the grave accent to be used which is attested only once in the
   publicated material.

   ...
   I think I'll rewrite Errantry...


   So I think the dot below should either represent the syllabicity or
   the schwa. If it represents syllabicity, then the schwa can be
   represented by the grave accent; if it represents schwa, then the
   syllabicity can remain unmarked.

   If the dot is used for schwa and syllabicity is not marked, then the
   word _nation_ would have no dot: _n-ey-sh-n_. The word _national_,
   however, would require two dots: _n-ash-.n-.l_ with the dots placed
   like the other tehtar or _n-ash.-n.-l_ with the dots placed as in DTS 50.


   <<Right, the latter spelling the same in principle as I also suggested as a
possibility for "nationalist" in my mail, with schwa-dots under preceding, other
tehtar on following tengwar. I had not been aware that DTS 50 actually
corroborated this choice, though :). I really should have a closer look at DTS
50/51, it's just that my knowledge of Old English (Anglo-Saxon) phonology is
rather superficial, which complicates matters...
   I noticed on thing, though: while DTS 50 has the tehtar on the following
tengwar and the dots under the preceding (strictly top to bottom as you point
out), DTS 51 seems to put the tehtar on the _preceding_ tengwar, but _still_
places the under-dots (and various other signs I haven't really checked out yet)
also under the preceding tengwar (as in DTS 39)...indeed, Tolkien tried out
pretty much every possibility it seems, even within the only two tengwar samples
for Old English we have.

   I agree, of course, that ideally one wouldn't use the under-dots for both
schwas and syllabicity (and certainly not for these two plus mute "e" on top of
it).>>


   > Also, in this example ["cladioulus"] it
   > seems that the tehtar (incl. the grave accent, that in my
   > reproduction [AI] seems to be on the lambe rather than the silme
   > nuquerna) are also placed on the preceding tengwar (as in DTS 39),
   > not on the following (which is the practice you use in your
   > "Errantry" transcription).

   Exactly. The use of úre is also a very good evidence for this.

   <<For what? That the tehtar go on the preceding tengwar here? If so, how is
the use of uure evidence for it (not that further evidence is needed)? I mean,
diphthongs/vowel combinations are usually spelt from top to bottom (both in
Quenya and the Mode of Gondor which otherwise have different "reading
directions", and in English tehtar modes), except in the Sindarin Mode of
Beleriand (a full mode), aren't they, so of course _(i)ou_ would be spelt with
uure.

   On this note: previously you wrote in a reply to my (ceaselss :)) questions
that "if a syllable has several vowels, e.g. in diphthongs, then only the most
prominent of them is represented with a vowel sign (with a tehta in tehtar
modes; with a tengwa in full writing), whereas secondary vowels tend to be
represented with other signs (with a tengwa in tehtar modes; with a tehta in
full writing)." You also said (to another of my nagging requests...argh) that
Sindarin and Quenya diphtongs were originally all "falling", which matches well
with the way they are spelled in the Quenya mode, (Sindarin) Mode of Gondor and
the (Sindarin) Mode of Beleriand. But for "iu" you say that this diphthong (only
occuring in Quenya) had become a "rising" one by the Third Age. Strictly
speaking, it should then no longer be spelled with I-tehta on top of uure, is
that right? And what spelling would one substitute (if one didn't want to stick
to the "traditional" orthography?) Yanta with U-tehta on top (since "u" is now
the prominent vowel), read from top to bottom unlike the other five diphthongs?
Doesn't sound right somehow.>>

   > And, since I'm at it, what about that
   > funny-looking stroke on top of formen in the next word, _fatarum_?
   > Any explanation for that?>>

   I've never wondered yet! I've been comfortable with my immediate
   intuition that it is either a slip or an accidental adornation. The
   dot within quesse in the word _incursu_ is also interesting.

   <<Well, that dot really looks rather like an ink stain to me. With the stroke
on top of formen I'm not so sure, though--looks to "deliberate" somehow, but
maybe it's just decorative as you suggest.
   Interesting also the second word after _incursu_: what is the E-tehta on top
of yanta meant to signify exactly?

   So, you'll really rewrite the whole thing? :)>>

   Hísilómë



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hey um dose the gif. moment2 means "Live The Present Moment"? if so,
cool!! ~flaminggecko~

--- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
>
> >  j. 'mach' wust scripsit:
> > On a second thought: In a mode where the vowel tehtar placed on
> > the preceding tengwar, we have an unambiguous evidence for the
> > schwa-dot
> > to be placed the same way, at the preceding tengwa (in
> > _nationalist_). In a mode where the vowel tehtar are placed on
> > the following tehtar, we have no unambiguous evidence for the
> > schwa-dot in any modern English mode, since the word _Britain_ in
> > DTS 39 can be considered to have a syllabicity-dot, not a
> > schwa-dot. However, there's the evidence of DTS 50 that shows the
> > reading direction top-down.
> >
> > Now this use of the schwa-dot is incompatible with the
> > syllabicity-dot. DTS 58 doesn't employ the syllabicity-dot in the
> > name _Rivendell_, so we may choose not to mark syllabicity at all
> > and to use only the schwa-dot placed under the preceding tengwar,
> > after the model of DTS 50, and accepting that _Edna_ may be
> > misread as _edden_.
>
>
>   <<Yes, this sounds good to me, too. In most cases, there wouldn't
> really be any ambiguity (as there's none here: no English word
> "edden" AFAIK, except maybe as a name), particularly once you've
> figured the system out.
>   The grave accent doesn't look all bad, either, though.
> Aesthetically, both are attractive I think, so it's really a matter
> of choice and consistency within a given text.>>

And a third thought reveals that it is still required, since there's
no tehta for the vowel sound of _nut_ yet (unless we'd take the
a-tehta which cannot ever occur isolated on a consonant, but this
would be contrary to any English intuition, I fear).

So the argument that we could do without the grave accent disappears.
And there's yet another argument against "reading top-down and not
marking syllabicity": In DTS 47 - The d'Ardenne Dedication - we see
the stressed r-sound of the second syllable of _return_ represented
with óre + dot above. Now this dot obviously cannot be a schwa-dot,
but must rather be considered a kinda syllabicity-dot that indicates
the syllabic _r_ to be stressed.


> I really should have a closer look at DTS 50/51, it's just that my
> knowledge of Old English (Anglo-Saxon) phonology is rather
> superficial, which complicates matters...

So was mine until I had a look at them which was worth it, since -as
you've noted- they are very instructive with respect to different
tengwar-tehtar orders. It's also interesting that in DTS 50, vowels of
some unstressed affixes tend to be represented not by tehtar, but by
tengwar.


>   So, you'll really rewrite the whole thing? :)>>

No big deal when you can use qwerty (more or less); I'm experimenting
with a tengwar keyboard-layout for Mac OSX.

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

Dave and me wrote alternately:

> > > Also, in this example ["cladioulus"] it
> > > seems that the tehtar (incl. the grave accent, that in my
> > > reproduction [AI] seems to be on the lambe rather than the silme
> > > nuquerna) are also placed on the preceding tengwar (as in DTS
> > > 39), not on the following (which is the practice you use in your
> > > "Errantry" transcription).
> >
> > Exactly. The use of úre is also a very good evidence for this.
>
>   <<For what? That the tehtar go on the preceding tengwar here? If
> so, how is the use of uure evidence for it (not that further
> evidence is needed)? I mean, diphthongs/vowel combinations are
> usually spelt from top to bottom (both in Quenya and the Mode of
> Gondor which otherwise have different "reading directions", and in
> English tehtar modes), except in the Sindarin Mode of Beleriand (a
> full mode), aren't they, so of course _(i)ou_ would be spelt with
> uure.

The thing is, úre is only used as an inverter of the normal reading
direction. In modes where all vowel tehtar are placed on the following
tengwar, vala is used instead. The same is true for yanta and anna
(with the notable exception of the Sindarin tehtar mode).

Therefore, the occurrence of an úre diphthong is a good evidence that
the tehtar are placed on the preceding tengwar.

>   Interesting also the second word after _incursu_: what is the
> E-tehta on top of yanta meant to signify exactly?

It's _deimonio_, with yanta used as an inverter of the reading direction.


> You also said (to another of my nagging requests...argh) that
> Sindarin and Quenya diphtongs were originally all "falling", which
> matches well with the way they are spelled in the Quenya mode,
> (Sindarin) Mode of Gondor and the (Sindarin) Mode of Beleriand. But
> for "iu" you say that this diphthong (only occuring in Quenya) had
> become a "rising" one by the Third Age. Strictly speaking, it should
> then no longer be spelled with I-tehta on top of uure, is that
> right?

What is "strictly speaking"? As a writer of English you should be
aware that spelling doesn't adapt to each change in pronunciation! :)


> And what spelling would one substitute (if one didn't want to
> stick to the "traditional" orthography?) Yanta with U-tehta on top
> (since "u" is now the prominent vowel), read from top to bottom
> unlike the other five diphthongs? Doesn't sound right somehow.>>

Yanta + u-tehta is _ui_. Rather two dots below the preceding tengwa
(or below anna used as a carrier) and then a u-tehta. However, ty + u
is probably pronounced differently from t + iu. In this case, I can't
think of a better representation than the classical one (úre + i-tehta).

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

> >  j. 'mach' wust scripsit:

And a third thought reveals that it is still required, since there's
no tehta for the vowel sound of _nut_ yet (unless we'd take the
a-tehta which cannot ever occur isolated on a consonant, but this
would be contrary to any English intuition, I fear).

<<I don't think these two issues are necessarily connected.
I think it would be ok (if one does not wish to use the grave accent) to mark
the schwas with under-dots under the following tengwar and leave syllabicity
unmarked (the latter as in the Rivendell Inscriptions).
As for the vowel in _nut_, I don't see why the a-tehta wouldn't work (or what
you mean by "can never occur isolated on a consonant" or "contrary to English
intuition").>>


So the argument that we could do without the grave accent disappears.
And there's yet another argument against "reading top-down and not
marking syllabicity": In DTS 47 - The d'Ardenne Dedication - we see
the stressed r-sound of the second syllable of _return_ represented
with óre + dot above. Now this dot obviously cannot be a schwa-dot,
but must rather be considered a kinda syllabicity-dot that indicates
the syllabic _r_ to be stressed.

<<I fail to see why it can't be a schwa-dot. Surely we're not dealing with a
syllabic "r" here.
Also, isn't it an under-dot? I don't have VT 23, so I have to rely on Chris
McKay's ISS instead (which does seem to have quite a few transcription
errors).>>

Greetings,

Hísilómë








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
>j. 'mach' wust wrote:
>
>The thing is, úre is only used as an inverter of the normal reading
>direction. In modes where all vowel tehtar are placed on the
>following tengwar, vala is used instead. The same is true for yanta
>and anna (with the notable exception of the Sindarin tehtar mode).
>Therefore, the occurrence of an úre diphthong is a good evidence
>that the tehtar are placed on the preceding tengwar.

<<Got you, thanks! Those darn diphthongs :).
But where is anna used as "inverter of the normal reading direction"
except in the Mode of Gondor (Sindarin tehtar mode) which doesn't
count since, as you point out, here the reading direction is _not_
reversed (though anna is indeed used to represent "i")? The use of
anna for "i" as second element in vowel combinations in English modes
is speculative, as far as I remember.>>

> > Interesting also the second word after _incursu_: what is the
> > E-tehta on top of yanta meant to signify exactly?
>
>It's _deimonio_, with yanta used as an inverter of the reading
>direction.

<<OK, I can see that now :).
Also, I think the "ink stain" (though it still looks like one to me)
in _incursu_ might be the indicator of the preceding nasal (??). The
over-bar/tilde one would expect here is certainly missing.

>
>>...this diphthong iu (only occuring in Quenya) had
>>become a "rising" one by the Third Age. Strictly speaking, it
>>should then no longer be spelled with I-tehta on top of uure, right?
>
>What is "strictly speaking"? As a writer of English you should be
>aware that spelling doesn't adapt to each change in
>pronunciation! :)

<<Of course that's true! I was just under the impression that the
Elves were more sensitive to such matters... :).>>

Hisilome

--- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "hisilome" <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
>
> >
> >j. 'mach' wust wrote:
> >
> >The thing is, úre is only used as an inverter of the normal reading
> >direction. In modes where all vowel tehtar are placed on the
> >following tengwar, vala is used instead. The same is true for yanta
> >and anna (with the notable exception of the Sindarin tehtar mode).
> >Therefore, the occurrence of an úre diphthong is a good evidence
> >that the tehtar are placed on the preceding tengwar.
>
> <<Got you, thanks! Those darn diphthongs :).
> But where is anna used as "inverter of the normal reading direction"
> except in the Mode of Gondor (Sindarin tehtar mode) which doesn't
> count since, as you point out, here the reading direction is _not_
> reversed (though anna is indeed used to represent "i")? The use of
> anna for "i" as second element in vowel combinations in English
> modes is speculative, as far as I remember.>>

No, it's attested both in a traditional ortography mode (in the word
_lay_ in DTS 37 - The Two Towers Jacket [draft C]) and in a phonemic
mode (in the word _preiz_ 'praise' in DTS 39 - Doodled Headlines).

The inverter of reading direction is vilya, not anna, and except for
the classical Quenya mode, it's precisely seen in DTS 41 - Envelope
Doodles.

I don't know this all by heart, but I once wrote down what I could
find out about the diphthongs:

http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/files/j_mach_wust/general_use.txt


> > > Interesting also the second word after _incursu_: what is the
> > > E-tehta on top of yanta meant to signify exactly?
> >
> >It's _deimonio_, with yanta used as an inverter of the reading
> >direction.
>
> <<OK, I can see that now :).
> Also, I think the "ink stain" (though it still looks like one to me)
> in _incursu_ might be the indicator of the preceding nasal (??). The
> over-bar/tilde one would expect here is certainly missing.

I'm not so certain about it: To me, it looks rather as if there were
two bars (the quesse bar and the nasal bar) very close to each other.
Together, they make a stroke that is thicker than any other in that
line, and at the left, it seems to me that I can see two ends.

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

--- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
>
>  j. 'mach' wust scripsit:
>
> > And a third thought reveals that it is still required, since
> > there's no tehta for the vowel sound of _nut_ yet (unless we'd
> > take the a-tehta which cannot ever occur isolated on a consonant,
> > but this would be contrary to any English intuition, I fear).
>
> <<I don't think these two issues are necessarily connected. I think
> it would be ok (if one does not wish to use the grave accent) to
> mark the schwas with under-dots under the following tengwar

Rather under the _preceding_ tengwar, wasn't it?

> and
> leave syllabicity unmarked (the latter as in the Rivendell
> Inscriptions). As for the vowel in _nut_, I don't see why the
> a-tehta wouldn't work (or what you mean by "can never occur isolated
> on a consonant" or "contrary to English intuition").>>

In it's normal meaning as a representation of "a" it can only occur as
the first part of a diphthong (e.g. _brait_ 'bright', _daun_ 'down'),
as a long vowel sound (e.g. Received Pronunciation _fa:st_ 'fast'),
and before óre (e.g. _startle_). These are exactly the environments
where the vowel sound of _nut_ cannot ever occur (unless you analyze
the word _fur_ as containing the sound of _nut_, see below).
Therefore, the sound of _nut_ would perfectly fit into this gap.

The reason why I said that this would be contrary to English intuition
is that most would rather fill this gap with the vowel of _bat_. There
are phonemic English writing systems by Tolkien where this is actually
the case, e.g. DTS 24 - The Treebeard Page. There are Tolkien modes
where the vowel of _bat_ is represented in another way (e.g. DTS 16,
17, 18, 23, where it's represented with a-tengwa + dot above and the
tehtar modes we're talking about where it's represented with the
reversed a-tehta), but still, none of these systems uses this gap to
represent the vowel of _nut_ (DTS 16, 17, 18, 23 use another vowel
sign; in the tehtar modes there's unfortunately no occurence of the
vowel of _nut_).


> > And there's yet another argument against "reading
> > top-down and not marking syllabicity": In DTS 47 - The d'Ardenne
> > Dedication - we see the stressed r-sound of the second syllable of
> > _return_ represented with óre + dot above. Now this dot obviously
> > cannot be a schwa-dot, but must rather be considered a kinda
> > syllabicity-dot that indicates the syllabic _r_ to be stressed.
>
> <<I fail to see why it can't be a schwa-dot. Surely we're not
> dealing with a syllabic "r" here. Also, isn't it an under-dot? I
> don't have VT 23, so I have to rely on Chris McKay's ISS instead
> (which does seem to have quite a few transcription errors).>>

I'm sorry, it was my error: Of course it is a dot below!

Now we were talking about an English tehtar mode where the vowel
tehtar are placed above the following tengwa except for the schwa-dot
which is placed below the preceding tengwa ("reading top-down and not
marking syllabicity"). If we try to read the word _return_ as written
in DTS 47 according to that mode, then we'll get something wrong, that
is, we'll read _ritR@n_: first óre, and then a schwa. So the spelling
of DTS 47 can't be explained with "reading top-down and not marking
syllabicity". We only get a correct reading if we either consider the
dot below to be a preceding schwa or to be a syllabicity marker.

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

> >j. 'mach' wust wrote:
> >
> Where is anna used as "inverter of the normal reading direction"
> except in the Mode of Gondor (Sindarin tehtar mode) which doesn't
> count since, as you point out, here the reading direction is _not_
> reversed (though anna is indeed used to represent "i")? The use of
> anna for "i" as second element in vowel combinations in English
> modes is speculative, as far as I remember.>>

No, it's attested both in a traditional ortography mode (in the word
_lay_ in DTS 37 - The Two Towers Jacket [draft C]) and in a phonemic
mode (in the word _preiz_ 'praise' in DTS 39 - Doodled Headlines).

<<Got me there! :)>>

The inverter of reading direction is vilya, not anna, and except for
the classical Quenya mode, it's precisely seen in DTS 41 - Envelope
Doodles.

<<I beg your pardon, but where is there even a single vilya (any kind) in DTS
41?

And where exactly does the classical Quenya mode use vilya as "inverter"? I
thought in the classical Quenya mode the diphthongs were:

ai = a-tehta atop yanta
au = a-tehta atop uure
eu = e-tehta atop uure
iu = i-tehta atop uure
oi = o-tehta atop yanta
ui = u-tehta atop yanta,

with the exceptions seen in Namaarie (spelling of _nainie_ and _caita_ where the
a-tehta is on the preceding consonant and the yanta stands "alone").
I believe vilya in the classical Quenya mode is just used for "v", the same as
vala, with the difference that vilya represents older wilya "w".

The only "inverter" of any kind I see in DTS 41 is uure.

But as usual, I'll probably stand corrected... :)

Hisilome




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>  j. 'mach' wust wrote:
   >
   > > And a third thought reveals that it is still required, since
   > > there's no tehta for the vowel sound of _nut_ yet (unless we'd
   > > take the a-tehta which cannot ever occur isolated on a consonant,
   > > but this would be contrary to any English intuition, I fear).

   I replied:
   > <<I don't think these two issues are necessarily connected. I think
   > it would be ok (if one does not wish to use the grave accent) to
   > mark the schwas with under-dots under the following tengwar

   Rather under the _preceding_ tengwar, wasn't it?

   <<Why, yes, that's also still an option, if it's applied with consistency. But
I was actually referring back to your favourite solution (if I understood you
correctly) and original proposal (in accordance with App. E) of placing all
tehtar _and_ schwa-dots on/under the _following_ tengwar.>>


   > and
   > leave syllabicity unmarked (the latter as in the Rivendell
   > Inscriptions). As for the vowel in _nut_, I don't see why the
   > a-tehta wouldn't work (or what you mean by "can never occur isolated
   > on a consonant" or "contrary to English intuition").>>

   In it's normal meaning as a representation of "a" it can only occur as
   the first part of a diphthong (e.g. _brait_ 'bright', _daun_ 'down'),
   as a long vowel sound (e.g. Received Pronunciation _fa:st_ 'fast'),
   and before óre (e.g. _startle_). These are exactly the environments
   where the vowel sound of _nut_ cannot ever occur (unless you analyze
   the word _fur_ as containing the sound of _nut_, see below).
   Therefore, the sound of _nut_ would perfectly fit into this gap.

   <<Hmm. Think I catch your main drift, though I still don't see what you meant
exactly by "isolated". ;)
   I don't think I know anyone who'd pronounce the vowel in _nut_ like the one in
_fur_...>>


   The reason why I said that this would be contrary to English intuition
   is that most would rather fill this gap with the vowel of _bat_. There
   are phonemic English writing systems by Tolkien where this is actually
   the case, e.g. DTS 24 - The Treebeard Page. There are Tolkien modes
   where the vowel of _bat_ is represented in another way (e.g. DTS 16,
   17, 18, 23, where it's represented with a-tengwa + dot above and the
   tehtar modes we're talking about where it's represented with the
   reversed a-tehta), but still, none of these systems uses this gap to
   represent the vowel of _nut_ (DTS 16, 17, 18, 23 use another vowel
   sign; in the tehtar modes there's unfortunately no occurence of the
   vowel of _nut_).

   <<Since there's no evidence in the grand master's specimens, what would you
propose then?>>


   > > And there's yet another argument against "reading
   > > top-down and not marking syllabicity": In DTS 47 - The d'Ardenne
   > > Dedication - we see the stressed r-sound of the second syllable of
   > > _return_ represented with óre + dot above. Now this dot obviously
   > > cannot be a schwa-dot, but must rather be considered a kinda
   > > syllabicity-dot that indicates the syllabic _r_ to be stressed.
   >
   > <<I fail to see why it can't be a schwa-dot. Surely we're not
   > dealing with a syllabic "r" here.>>


   Now we were talking about an English tehtar mode where the vowel
   tehtar are placed above the following tengwa except for the schwa-dot
   which is placed below the preceding tengwa ("reading top-down and not
   marking syllabicity"). If we try to read the word _return_ as written
   in DTS 47 according to that mode, then we'll get something wrong, that
   is, we'll read _ritR@n_: first óre, and then a schwa. So the spelling
   of DTS 47 can't be explained with "reading top-down and not marking
   syllabicity". We only get a correct reading if we either consider the
   dot below to be a preceding schwa or to be a syllabicity marker.

   <<Exactly. It has to be the schwa, because there simply is no syllabic
consonant here (cf. _written_: here the "n" is syllabic, but in _return_ there's
definitely a vowel sound [the very schwa in this case] between "t" and
"rn"----if there wasn't, then _return_ would indeed sound very much like
_written_).

   As I said, I think it's fine to go with your original intuition to put (in a
phonemic tehtar mode) the tehtar and the schwa-dots atop/under the _following_
tengwar. Syllabicity doesn't need to be marked, also because it occurs much less
frequently in English than schwas do.>>

   Hisilome




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
> > >j. 'mach' wust wrote:
>
> > The inverter of reading direction is vilya, not anna, and except
> > for the classical Quenya mode, it's precisely seen in DTS 41 -
> > Envelope Doodles.
>
> <<I beg your pardon, but where is there even a single vilya (any
> kind) in DTS 41?

What am I saying? I meant yanta, not vilya. Sorry for the confusion. I
should wait with posting until I'm off hangover...


> The only "inverter" of any kind I see in DTS 41 is uure.

Except for yanta in _deimonio_. ;)

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

--- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
>
> But I was actually referring back to your favourite solution (if I
> understood you correctly) and original proposal (in accordance with
> App. E) of placing all tehtar _and_ schwa-dots on/under the
> _following_ tengwar.>>

If by 'original' you mean the mode I've used for the Errantry
transcription, then you got it wrong, since there I use the dot below
only as a syllabicity-dot, maintining thus the difference between
syllabicity marker and schwa as observed in the phonemic full writing
modes. I merge the schwa with the vowel of _nut_, despite there
differenciation in those modes, but this is attested in certain sarati
modes, if I'm not wrong (it's very difficult to get access to the
sarati samples, that is, to PE 13).


> > The reason why I said that this would be contrary to English
> > intuition is that most would rather fill this gap with the vowel
> > of _bat_. There are phonemic English writing systems by Tolkien
> > where this is actually the case, e.g. DTS 24 - The Treebeard Page.
> > There are Tolkien modes where the vowel of _bat_ is represented in
> > another way (e.g. DTS 16, 17, 18, 23, where it's represented with
> > a-tengwa + dot above and the tehtar modes we're talking about
> > where it's represented with the reversed a-tehta), but still, none
> > of these systems uses this gap to represent the vowel of _nut_
> > (DTS 16, 17, 18, 23 use another vowel sign; in the tehtar modes
> > there's unfortunately no occurence of the vowel of _nut_).
>
> <<Since there's no evidence in the grand master's specimens, what
> would you propose then?>>

I prefer the grave accent which is attested for a schwa in DTS 41.


> > If we try to read the word _return_ as written in DTS 47 according
> > to that mode, then we'll get something wrong, that is, we'll read
> > _ritR@n_: first óre, and then a schwa. So the spelling of DTS 47
> > can't be explained with "reading top-down and not marking
> > syllabicity". We only get a correct reading if we either consider
> > the dot below to be a preceding schwa or to be a syllabicity
> > marker.
>
> <<Exactly. It has to be the schwa, because there simply is no
> syllabic consonant here (cf. _written_: here the "n" is syllabic,
> but in _return_ there's definitely a vowel sound [the very schwa in
> this case] between "t" and "rn"----if there wasn't, then _return_
> would indeed sound very much like _written_).

The word _turn_ may be analyzed as containing a stressed syllabic
r-sound (as opposed to the unstressed syllabic r-sound which is simply
represented by óre in words such as _better_ etc.): t + (stressed
syllabic r) + n. Another possibility is to analyze it as follows: t +
(vowel of _nut_) + r + n. Tolkien seems to prefer the previous
analysis, since in DTS 24 we see the word _searching_ written with óre
+ andaith, that is, with a long syllabic r-sound.

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

i was wondering if there was a translation for karma...

I wrote:
> The only "inverter" of any kind I see in DTS 41 is uure.

j. 'mach' wust replied:
Except for yanta in _deimonio_. ;)

<<...and corrected I stand :).>>

Hisilome




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

j. 'mach' wust wrote:
If by 'original' you mean the mode I've used for the Errantry
transcription, then you got it wrong, since there I use the dot below
only as a syllabicity-dot, maintining thus the difference between
syllabicity marker and schwa as observed in the phonemic full writing
modes. I merge the schwa with the vowel of _nut_, despite there
differenciation in those modes, but this is attested in certain sarati
modes, if I'm not wrong

<<You're right, I didn't express myself very clearly here! (And no hangover to
blame it on...just being tired after playing football... :).) My point of
departure was your premise that tehtar and schwa-dots (supposing we use dots for
the schwa) be placed on the following tengwar (as opposed to the way it's done
in DTS 39).

So I gather you will stick to the system used in your "Errantry"-transcription:
tehtar on following tengwar, schwa and the vowel in _nut_ (also on following
tengwar) spelled with the grave accent (the latter as in _running_,
_Hummerhorns_), syllabicity marked by under-dots.>>


(it's very difficult to get access to the
sarati samples, that is, to PE 13).

<<Tell me about it! I'd also be interested in that issue, and in no.14, which
contains writings on early Qenya grammar...but they're both out of stock :(.>>


> > If we try to read the word _return_ as written in DTS 47 according
> > to that mode, then we'll get something wrong, that is, we'll read
> > _ritR@n_: first óre, and then a schwa. So the spelling of DTS 47
> > can't be explained with "reading top-down and not marking
> > syllabicity". We only get a correct reading if we either consider
> > the dot below to be a preceding schwa or to be a syllabicity
> > marker.
>
> <<Exactly. It has to be the schwa, because there simply is no
> syllabic consonant here (cf. _written_: here the "n" is syllabic,
> but in _return_ there's definitely a vowel sound [the very schwa in
> this case] between "t" and "rn"----if there wasn't, then _return_
> would indeed sound very much like _written_).>>

The word _turn_ may be analyzed as containing a stressed syllabic
r-sound (as opposed to the unstressed syllabic r-sound which is simply
represented by óre in words such as _better_ etc.): t + (stressed
syllabic r) + n. Another possibility is to analyze it as follows: t +
(vowel of _nut_) + r + n. Tolkien seems to prefer the previous
analysis, since in DTS 24 we see the word _searching_ written with óre
+ andaith, that is, with a long syllabic r-sound.

<<Well, I'm no trained linguist and I'm sure my intuitions are sometimes
(often...) wrong :).

To me, analysing _turn_ as "t + (vowel of _nut_) + r + n" doesn't sound right:
does anybody pronounce it like that? Like Tolkien, I definitely wouldn't go for
this.

But (there had to be a "but"!) I'm not sure I'm very happy with the first
analysis, either. I noticed that you spelled for example "furbished" or
"burnished" also with the syllabicity-under-dot, all in accordance with the
interpretation of _turn_ as "t + (stressed syllabic r) + n". To repeat myself,
to my ears--and again, I can be very wrong--the final sound in _written_ or
_driven_ (the latter occuring in "Errantry") sounds different than the second
part of _turn_. I think in _turn_ I can actually hear a schwa sound (_not_ the
sound in _nut_!), which I don't in the other two words (which, to further
complicate matters, some people also pronounce _with_ an audible schwa, taking
away the syllabicity of the "n" and slightly lengthening the [still unstressed]
second syllable as I perceive it).
Again, if _return_ is pronounced without an audible schwa, doesn't it sound like
(syllabic "n"-)_written_?

Another, connected point: in _written_ etc, the stress is on the first syllable,
so the syllabic "n" is unstressed. Why does there seem to be a distinction
between unstressed syllabic "r" (which, as you point out above, is simply
represented by oore without any dot or other syllabicity marker [better,
whither, mariner etc.]), and other unstressed syllabic consonants (as in
_written [n], driven [n], little [l]_ etc.), which are consistently (well,
almost) marked by a dot? This dichotomy is exemplified in the very last line of
your "Errantry"-transcription ("weather-driven mariner"), and is of course well
attested in Tolkien's phonemic full modes. I would be curious to learn any
explanation for this.

As for what you call "stressed syllabic r", I still tend to think that what we
see in DTS 47 (d'Ardenne Dedication) is a schwa sign, and the andaith on oore in
_searching_ (DTS 24) clearly (also in Tolkien's mind) indicates "schwa (as in
_fur_) + r"----if the _r_ was syllabic, we should see an under-dot in this mode,
I believe (though it seems a bit more complicated than that, see further below).
I don't see the need to interpret these stressed syllables as containing a
"stressed syllabic r".

I would even go so far as to say that there are no "stressed syllabic
consonants" in modern English: for me, the first syllable of _searching_ or the
second of _return_ are stressed (even more obvious in _search, turn_ without
prefix/ending) syllables with a clearly discernible schwa.
Syllabic consonants (usually _d, l, n, r, t_) only occur in unstressed
syllables, where in Tolkien's phonemic modes they are normally marked with an
under-dot, with the notable exception of _r_. (This is bascially also what you
write in your article "Two Phonetic 'Full Writing' Modes".)

Therefore, returning to your "Errantry"-transcription, I would suggest to spell
all the relevant sounds (I might call them "stressed syllables with schwas
ending in _r_") not with an under-dot, but (just like the other schwas) with the
grave accent on oore. (This would apply for example to the words _journeyed,
furbished, burnished_.)
The spelling of the (unstressed) syllabic consonants could remain unchanged:
unmarked for _r_, marked with an under-dot for the other consonants.

And finally (I hope) there are two other words that receive an under-dot in your
transcription where I'd be interested in knowing the exact rationale for it:

a) _and_, spelled with ando + over-bar + under-dot. ando + over-bar = nd, no
problem, but why not (for example) the inverted a-tehta on top (as in DTS 39 for
the same sound, _nationalist_ etc.)? Or, if one would (justifiably) argue that
in most cases the word _and_ does not receive stress and the sound of "a (as in
_bat_)" is therefore reduced to a schwa, the grave accent? Again, I can't see
the "n(d)" in _and_ as syllabic to justify the under-dot (unless you speak very
rapidly and indistinctly maybe...as Tolkien often seems to have done :)).

I am aware Tolkien uses this spelling in his _phonemic_ modes, but I also find
him strangely inconsistent: In the Treebeard Page, we see _companiONs_ or
_fragmENT_ spelled with an under-dot, but _enEmy_ with a dot atop a short
carrier (which is also seen to represent for example the sound of _e_ in
_dEceived_). Now to me, it are the sounds in _companiONs_, _fragmENT_ and
_enEmy_ that are the same (all schwas), while the sound in _dEceived_ is
distinct.
I simply cannot share the perception of _And_ (in the Bombadil specimens) or the
sounds in _companiONs_ etc. as "syllabic", or why sometimes a schwa (_enEmy_,
_deepEst [DTS 30]_) is spelled like the sound in _dEceived_ (which corresponds
to the _i_ in _stick_ etc.).
And in DTS 17, for example, once even a clearly syllabic consonant (not "r") is
not so marked {_bubbLes_). Also in DTS 17, _womAN's_ is spelled with an
under-dot: Again, does this really mark syllabicity? Surely we are dealing with
a schwa here? The list is long (_dragON, habergEON_, etc...).

(What _is_ the "standard" way [if any] of representing schwas in phonemic modes
(which are of course mostly full modes)? Dot atop short carrier? Under-dot?
Or...?)

My general impression is that Tolkien was "wavering" quite a bit when it came to
the representation of schwa, syllabicity and similar sounds in his phonemic
modes. (Or are we to assume that _both_ schwas and syllabic consonants can be
marked with an under-dot in the phonemic modes??)

(BTW, _nationalist_ is pronounced by many as having a syllabic consonant (either
the second _n_ or the _l_), and only one schwa.)

b) _them_, spelled with anto + malta with an under-dot. Even an unstressed
_them_ would still not necessarily contain a syllabic "m", I feel (unless you
speak fast and reduce it to _'(e)m_, and here we're dealing with a poem.
According to the prosody of, for example, the line "of Paradise, and vanquished
them", the _them_ should receive some stress though, so certainly we're dealing
with a schwa here, not a syllabic consonant?!

Well, so much for now. Hope my ramblings haven't tired you out...>>

Hisilome





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:

> To repeat myself, to my ears--and again, I can be
> very wrong--the final sound in _written_ or _driven_ (the latter
> occuring in "Errantry") sounds different than the second part of
> _turn_.

I don't see your point. Of course they are different, since in the
second syllables of the words _written, driven_, there is absolutely
no _r_ at all. Why should they sound similar to the syllable _turn_?

> I think in _turn_ I can actually hear a schwa sound (_not_
> the sound in _nut_!), which I don't in the other two words (which,
> to further complicate matters, some people also pronounce _with_ an
> audible schwa, taking away the syllabicity of the "n" and slightly
> lengthening the [still unstressed] second syllable as I perceive
> it).
> Again, if _return_ is pronounced without an audible schwa, doesn't
> it sound like (syllabic "n"-)_written_?

What syllabicity of _n_? The _n_ in _turn_ has as few syllabicity as
the _n_ in _ton_, for instance. It comes after the vowel (whereas the
_r_ may be considered to be a part of the vowel).


> Another, connected point: in _written_ etc, the stress is on the
> first syllable, so the syllabic "n" is unstressed. Why does there
> seem to be a distinction between unstressed syllabic "r" (which, as
> you point out above, is simply represented by oore without any dot
> or other syllabicity marker [better, whither, mariner etc.]), and
> other unstressed syllabic consonants (as in _written [n], driven
> [n], little [l]_ etc.), which are consistently (well, almost) marked
> by a dot? This dichotomy is exemplified in the very last line of
> your "Errantry"-transcription ("weather-driven mariner"), and is of
> course well attested in Tolkien's phonemic full modes. I would be
> curious to learn any explanation for this.

I think the explanation is that we could think of óre as a vowel, not
a consonant. Tolkien spoke a so called non-rhotic dialect of English.
That is to say, the sound that occurs at the end of the word _dear_ is
a vowel and not an _r_ as the one at the beginning of the word _rid_.
The last sound of _dear_ is not even r-coloured but rather a kind of
schwa, and it is rather the same as the last sound in _idea_. In the
non-rhotic dialects of English, _court_ usually is a perfect homophone
of _caught_ (and both sound different from _cot_).

However, óre is only a second class vowel sign: In vowel sequences,
the marginal vowels aren't written with full vowel signs, but with
tehtar (in the full writing modes). The _i_ in the word _brait_
'bright', for instance, is written with two dots above the a-tengwa.
Óre, however, is always written out fully.

There are some samples where unstressed syllabic _r_ has a dot below
like all the other syllabic consonants: DTS 25. The difference between
these samples and the other is that óre is the only r-sign. I think
there are also orthographic modes where it's like this, I don't
remember right now. Since there's only one r-sign, it is a normal
vowel sign such as númen, and as such it requires the syllabicity marker.


> As for what you call "stressed syllabic r", I still tend to think
> that what we see in DTS 47 (d'Ardenne Dedication) is a schwa sign,
> and the andaith on oore in _searching_ (DTS 24) clearly (also in
> Tolkien's mind) indicates "schwa (as in _fur_) + r"----if the _r_
> was syllabic, we should see an under-dot in this mode, I believe

Why is that? The andaith is only used to mark long vowels in that
mode, so it is a very unambiguous indicator of "vowelicity".


> I would even go so far as to say that there are no "stressed
> syllabic consonants" in modern English: for me, the first syllable
> of _searching_ or the second of _return_ are stressed (even more
> obvious in _search, turn_ without prefix/ending) syllables with a
> clearly discernible schwa.
> Syllabic consonants (usually _d, l, n, r, t_) only occur in
> unstressed syllables, where in Tolkien's phonemic modes they are
> normally marked with an under-dot, with the notable exception of
> _r_. (This is bascially also what you write in your article "Two
> Phonetic 'Full Writing' Modes".)
>
> Therefore, returning to your "Errantry"-transcription, I would
> suggest to spell all the relevant sounds (I might call them
> "stressed syllables with schwas ending in _r_") not with an
> under-dot, but (just like the other schwas) with the grave accent on
> oore. (This would apply for example to the words _journeyed,
> furbished, burnished_.)

The point of writing them with a dot below is that it's attested. And
isn't that contrary to what you've written above? ;) Compare:

> To me, analysing _turn_ as "t + (vowel of _nut_) + r + n" doesn't
> sound right: does anybody pronounce it like that? Like Tolkien, I
> definitely wouldn't go for this.

:)

> And finally (I hope) there are two other words that receive an
> under-dot in your transcription where I'd be interested in knowing
> the exact rationale for it:

Short answer: I spelled _and, them_ with a dot below because that's
the attested spelling.


> I am aware Tolkien uses this spelling in his _phonemic_ modes, but I
> also find him strangely inconsistent: In the Treebeard Page, we see
> _companiONs_ or _fragmENT_ spelled with an under-dot, but _enEmy_
> with a dot atop a short carrier (which is also seen to represent for
> example the sound of _e_ in _dEceived_). Now to me, it are the
> sounds in _companiONs_, _fragmENT_ and _enEmy_ that are the same
> (all schwas), while the sound in _dEceived_ is distinct.

I think it's like this: If there a single unstressed syllable, then
that unstressed syllable may be analyzed as having a syllabic
consonant (if there is an appropriate sound capable of syllabicity, of
course, that is, _n, m, l, r_). However, if there is a sequence of two
unstressed syllables seperated only by _n, m, l, r_, then there
mustn't be a syllabic consonant in any of the two syllables.
Therefore, the single unstressed syllables of _companion, fragment_
are analyzed as having a syllabic consonant, whereas _gondola, enemy,
marjoram_ don't have any syllabic consonants (and therefore I'd argue
that _nationalist_ doesn't have any syllabic consonants either).

I think of this rather as a spelling rule than a description of
specific pronunciations.


> I simply cannot share the perception [...] why
> sometimes a schwa (_enEmy_, _deepEst [DTS 30]_) is spelled like the
> sound in _dEceived_ (which corresponds to the _i_ in _stick_ etc.).

The vowels of unstressed syllables vary a lot from dialect to dialect.
Additionally, there are many samples where Tolkien forgot a dot, and
in some cases we may assume that he put a dot too much.


> (What _is_ the "standard" way [if any] of representing schwas in
> phonemic modes (which are of course mostly full modes)? Dot atop
> short carrier? Under-dot? Or...?)

Short carrier without any dot. In DTS 24, it is maybe either a short
or a long carrier, the latter being preferred at the ends of words.

> My general impression is that Tolkien was "wavering" quite a bit
> when it came to the representation of schwa, syllabicity and similar
> sounds in his phonemic modes.

I rather think that the representations he chose are remarkably
consistent, though there are different ways of representations and
some errors.

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

> i was wondering if there was a translation for
> karma...

there are words for doom and fate

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
ÁðïêôÞóôå ôç äùñåÜí @yahoo.gr äéåýèõíóç óáò óôï http://www.otenet.gr

j. 'mach' wust wrote:
> > To repeat myself, to my ears--and again, I can be
> > very wrong--the final sound in _written_ or _driven_ (the latter
> > occuring in "Errantry") sounds different than the second part of
> > _turn_.
>
> I don't see your point. Of course they are different, since in the
> second syllables of the words _written, driven_, there is absolutely
> no _r_ at all. Why should they sound similar to the syllable _turn_?

<<My point was simply that I don't think there are stressed syllabic
consonants in English. But if we interpret the under-dot under oore
in _return_ (DTS 47) as a sign of syllabicity, we would be claiming
exactly that. And if we then tried to pronounce it that way (i.e. as
a stressed syllabic consonant [which I believe it isn't]), we'd end
up with something that sounds very similar to the sound of _written_
(apart from the different stress: the _[e]n_ in written is of course
not stressed, since it's syllabic).

BTW, that syllables are _spelled_ differently (e.g. one containing an
_r_ and the other not) is in itself no reliable indicator at all that
they could not be pronounced similarly----especially in English :).>>
>

> > Again, if _return_ is pronounced without an audible schwa, doesn't
> > it sound like (syllabic "n"-)_written_?
>
> What syllabicity of _n_? The _n_ in _turn_ has as few syllabicity as
> the _n_ in _ton_, for instance. It comes after the vowel (whereas
the
> _r_ may be considered to be a part of the vowel).

<<Here I was clearly referring to the syllabicity of the _n_ in
written.>>
>
>
> > As for what you call "stressed syllabic r", I still tend to think
> > that what we see in DTS 47 (d'Ardenne Dedication) is a schwa sign,
> > and the andaith on oore in _searching_ (DTS 24) clearly (also in
> > Tolkien's mind) indicates "schwa (as in _fur_) + r"----if the _r_
> > was syllabic, we should see an under-dot in this mode, I believe
>
> Why is that? The andaith is only used to mark long vowels in that
> mode, so it is a very unambiguous indicator of "vowelicity".

<<Of course. A schwa _is_ a vowel.
And the fact that he uses no syllabicity dot corroborates my point
that Tolkien interprets the sound in _search_ as a vowel (schwa) ,
whereas you quoted the word _search_ as seen in DTS 24 as a an
indicator that Tolkien "preferred the interpretation of _retURn_ as
a 'long _syllabic_ r'".>>
>
>
> > I would even go so far as to say that there are no "stressed
> > syllabic consonants" in modern English: for me, the first syllable
> > of _searching_ or the second of _return_ are stressed (even more
> > obvious in _search, turn_ without prefix/ending) syllables with a
> > clearly discernible schwa.
> > Syllabic consonants (usually _d, l, n, r, t_) only occur in
> > unstressed syllables, where in Tolkien's phonemic modes they are
> > normally marked with an under-dot, with the notable exception of
> > _r_. (This is bascially also what you write in your article "Two
> > Phonetic 'Full Writing' Modes".)
> >
> > Therefore, returning to your "Errantry"-transcription, I would
> > suggest to spell all the relevant sounds (I might call them
> > "stressed syllables with schwas ending in _r_") not with an
> > under-dot, but (just like the other schwas) with the grave accent
on
> > oore. (This would apply for example to the words _journeyed,
> > furbished, burnished_.)
>
> The point of writing them with a dot below is that it's attested.
And
> isn't that contrary to what you've written above? ;) Compare:
>
> > To me, analysing _turn_ as "t + (vowel of _nut_) + r + n" doesn't
> > sound right: does anybody pronounce it like that? Like Tolkien, I
> > definitely wouldn't go for this.
>
<<What I wrote was that I wasn't happy with _either_ of the two
analyses you gave for the final sound in _turn_ (either as containing
a stressed syllabic r-sound: "t + [stressed syllabic r] + n" or "t +
(vowel of _nut_) + r + n"). I didn't just reject the latter
interpretation and therefore accept the former by default ;).
I'd analyse "t + schwa + n" (or, more generally "C + schwa + C") and
would therefore not use a syllabicity dot.>>

>
> > And finally (I hope) there are two other words that receive an
> > under-dot in your transcription where I'd be interested in knowing
> > the exact rationale for it:
>
> Short answer: I spelled _and, them_ with a dot below because that's
> the attested spelling.

<<Hm. I'd really like to ask the grand master about this...pity
that's no longer possible.>>
>
>
> > I am aware Tolkien uses this spelling in his _phonemic_ modes,
but I
> > also find him strangely inconsistent: In the Treebeard Page, we
see
> > _companiONs_ or _fragmENT_ spelled with an under-dot, but _enEmy_
> > with a dot atop a short carrier (which is also seen to represent
for
> > example the sound of _e_ in _dEceived_). Now to me, it are the
> > sounds in _companiONs_, _fragmENT_ and _enEmy_ that are the same
> > (all schwas), while the sound in _dEceived_ is distinct.
>
> I think it's like this: If there a single unstressed syllable, then
> that unstressed syllable may be analyzed as having a syllabic
> consonant (if there is an appropriate sound capable of syllabicity,
of
> course, that is, _n, m, l, r_). However, if there is a sequence of
two
> unstressed syllables seperated only by _n, m, l, r_, then there
> mustn't be a syllabic consonant in any of the two syllables.
> Therefore, the single unstressed syllables of _companion, fragment_
> are analyzed as having a syllabic consonant, whereas _gondola,
enemy,
> marjoram_ don't have any syllabic consonants (and therefore I'd
argue
> that _nationalist_ doesn't have any syllabic consonants either).

<<Of course it doesn't! We agreed those were schwa dots.>>
>
> I think of this rather as a spelling rule than a description of
> specific pronunciations.

<<Hm. "A spelling rule"? Sounds rather orthographic ;).>>

Hisilome